| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.281 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
1.441 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.785 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.994 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.791 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.471 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.635 | -0.515 |
Xi'an Medical University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, characterized by an overall low-risk score of 0.198. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths in maintaining very low rates of institutional self-citation, hyperprolific authorship, and multiple affiliations, indicating a culture that values external validation and responsible authorship. However, this strong foundation is contrasted by significant vulnerabilities, most notably a high rate of retracted output, which requires immediate attention. Additional areas for review include a medium-risk level for publications in discontinued journals and a notable gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work where it holds intellectual leadership. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's most prominent thematic areas include Environmental Science, Chemistry, and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics. While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, the identified risks, particularly concerning retractions and publication quality, could undermine any institutional commitment to research excellence and social responsibility. By leveraging its clear strengths in governance and author-level integrity, Xi'an Medical University is well-positioned to develop targeted strategies to mitigate these specific vulnerabilities and further solidify its reputation for high-quality, impactful research.
The institution demonstrates a very low rate of multiple affiliations (Z-score: -1.281), a figure that is even more conservative than the already low national average for China (Z-score: -0.062). This low-profile consistency suggests that the institution's collaborative practices are well-governed and transparent. The absence of risk signals in this area indicates that institutional credit is being assigned appropriately, avoiding any perception of strategic "affiliation shopping" to inflate its standing.
A severe discrepancy exists between the institution's performance and the national standard regarding retracted output. The institutional Z-score of 1.441 is in the significant risk category, which is highly atypical when compared to China's low-risk national average (Z-score: -0.050). Retractions are complex events, but a rate this far above the norm suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture points to possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires an immediate and deep qualitative verification by management.
The institution shows a strong preventive isolation from national trends in self-citation, with an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.785, while the national average for China (Z-score: 0.045) indicates a medium-risk environment. This demonstrates that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this very low rate confirms that the institution's work is validated through robust external scrutiny rather than internal 'echo chambers,' effectively mitigating any risk of endogamous impact inflation and showing its academic influence is recognized by the global community.
A moderate deviation from the national norm is observed in the rate of publications in discontinued journals. The institution's Z-score of 0.994 places it at a medium-risk level, showing greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers, who maintain a low-risk average (Z-score: -0.024). This constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score indicates that a portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for improved information literacy to avoid 'predatory' practices.
With a Z-score of -0.791, the institution maintains a prudent profile regarding hyper-authored output, managing its processes with slightly more rigor than the national standard in China (Z-score: -0.721). This low-risk level suggests that authorship practices are generally well-controlled. This serves as a positive signal that the institution effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration in "Big Science" contexts and potentially problematic 'honorary' or political authorship, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency in its research.
A monitoring alert is triggered by the gap between the impact of the institution's total output and that of its leadership-driven output. The Z-score of 0.471 signifies a medium risk, an unusual level when compared to the very low-risk national standard in China (Z-score: -0.809). A wide positive gap signals a potential sustainability risk, suggesting that the institution's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, not structural. This invites reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The institution demonstrates a remarkable preventive isolation from national trends concerning hyperprolific authors. Its Z-score of -1.413 is extremely low, particularly when contrasted with the medium-risk national average for China (Z-score: 0.425), showing it does not replicate the risk dynamics prevalent in its environment. The absence of extreme individual publication volumes, which can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution, indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality. This successfully avoids risks such as coercive authorship or authorship without real participation, prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution exhibits low-profile consistency in its use of institutional journals, with a very low Z-score of -0.268 that aligns with the low-risk national standard in China (Z-score: -0.010). The absence of risk signals indicates that the institution is not overly dependent on its in-house publications, thereby avoiding potential conflicts of interest where it would act as both judge and party. By favoring external channels, the institution ensures its scientific production undergoes independent peer review, which is essential for enhancing its global visibility and credibility.
In the area of redundant output, the institution demonstrates total operational silence. Its Z-score of -0.635 indicates an absence of risk signals that is even more pronounced than the already very low national average for China (Z-score: -0.515). This exceptional result suggests that the practice of fragmenting a coherent study into 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity, also known as 'salami slicing,' is not present. The institution's research culture appears to prioritize the publication of significant new knowledge over sheer volume, contributing positively to the integrity of the scientific record.
