| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.291 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.493 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.016 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.280 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.177 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.193 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
1.034 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.644 | -0.515 |
Qingdao University of Science and Technology presents a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall score of -0.250. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining low rates of retracted output, hyper-authored publications, and redundant publications, indicating strong internal quality controls. Key vulnerabilities are observed in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and the Rate of Hyperprolific Authors, which exceed national averages and warrant strategic review. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's primary areas of research excellence are concentrated in Environmental Science, Energy, and Chemistry, where it holds a prominent position. As the institution's mission statement was not available for this analysis, a direct assessment of strategic alignment is not possible; however, the identified risks could potentially challenge any mission centered on research excellence and social responsibility by creating perceptions of metric-driven behavior over substantive scientific contribution. A targeted review of authorship and affiliation policies is recommended to fortify its already strong foundation and ensure its operational practices fully align with its clear thematic leadership.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.291, which indicates a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.062. This suggests the university shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors related to affiliation practices than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this elevated rate signals a need for review. It is important to verify that these affiliations correspond to genuine, substantive collaborations and are not being used as a strategic tool to inflate institutional credit, a practice sometimes referred to as “affiliation shopping.”
With a Z-score of -0.493, significantly below the national average of -0.050, the institution demonstrates a consistent and exemplary low-risk profile. This absence of risk signals aligns with and surpasses the national standard, pointing to highly effective pre-publication quality control mechanisms. Rather than indicating systemic failures, this near-zero rate of retractions suggests that the institution's culture of integrity and methodological rigor is strong, preventing errors and potential malpractice before they enter the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.016 is notably lower than the national average of 0.045, showcasing institutional resilience against a systemic national trend. This performance suggests that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the risk of endogamous impact inflation. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but by maintaining a rate below the national context, the university avoids creating scientific 'echo chambers' and ensures its academic influence is validated by the broader global community rather than being oversized by internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.280 reflects a more prudent profile compared to the national average of -0.024. This indicates that its researchers and administrators manage the selection of publication venues with greater rigor than the national standard. A high proportion of output in such journals would constitute a critical alert regarding due diligence, but this low score confirms the institution is effectively avoiding channels that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, thereby safeguarding its reputation and research investment from 'predatory' practices.
With a Z-score of -1.177, far below the national average of -0.721, the institution exhibits an exceptionally low-risk profile in this area. This result demonstrates a consistent alignment with best practices, suggesting a culture where authorship is managed with high transparency and accountability. The data indicates that the institution successfully distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration, common in 'Big Science,' and questionable practices like 'honorary' or political authorship, which can dilute individual responsibility.
The institution's Z-score of -1.193 is significantly lower than the already low national average of -0.809, indicating a total absence of risk signals in this domain. A wide positive gap can signal that an institution's prestige is dependent on external partners rather than its own capabilities. However, this extremely low score confirms that the university's scientific prestige is structural and derives from its own intellectual leadership, reflecting a high degree of research sustainability and robust internal capacity.
The institution's Z-score of 1.034 is considerably higher than the national average of 0.425, signaling a high exposure to this risk factor. Although the national context already shows a tendency towards this practice, the university is more prone to displaying alert signals. Extreme individual publication volumes challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and can point to imbalances between quantity and quality. This finding warrants a review of authorship practices to mitigate risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without substantive participation, which prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates a near-total absence of this risk, performing better than the low-risk national average of -0.010. This low-profile consistency reflects a strong commitment to external, independent validation. By avoiding over-reliance on its own journals, the university effectively sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production is vetted through standard competitive peer review and achieves greater global visibility.
The institution's Z-score of -0.644 is even lower than the very low-risk national average of -0.515, reflecting a complete absence of risk signals. This result points to a strong institutional culture that values substantive contributions over inflated publication counts. The data shows no evidence of 'salami slicing,' the practice of fragmenting a single study into minimal publishable units. This commitment to publishing coherent, impactful research protects the integrity of the scientific evidence base and avoids overburdening the peer review system.
