| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.343 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
2.202 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.132 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.067 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.146 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.417 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.579 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.332 | -0.515 |
Shaanxi University of Science and Technology presents a profile of solid scientific capacity alongside specific, high-priority areas for integrity enhancement. With an overall score of 0.575, the institution demonstrates significant strengths, particularly in its capacity for generating high-impact research under its own leadership and maintaining ethical authorship and publication channel practices. These strengths provide a robust foundation for its notable performance in key thematic areas, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings in Environmental Science, Chemistry, Agricultural and Biological Sciences, and Medicine. However, this strong scientific output is contrasted by critical vulnerabilities, most notably a significant rate of retracted publications, and medium-risk signals in multiple affiliations, self-citation, and hyperprolific authorship. While the specific institutional mission was not available for this analysis, any commitment to scientific excellence and social responsibility is fundamentally challenged by risks that compromise the reliability and transparency of research. Addressing these integrity gaps is not merely a compliance issue but a strategic imperative to ensure that the institution's recognized thematic strengths are built upon a foundation of unimpeachable scientific practice. A targeted action plan focused on pre-publication quality control and authorship policies will be crucial for aligning its operational reality with its strategic ambitions.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 0.343, which represents a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.062. This suggests the center has a greater sensitivity to risk factors in this area than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the higher rate at the institution warrants a closer look. This value could signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," a practice that, if unmonitored, can distort the perception of the university's collaborative footprint and research ownership.
With a Z-score of 2.202, the institution shows a severe discrepancy compared to the low-risk national environment (Z-score: -0.050). This risk activity is highly atypical and points to a critical vulnerability. Retractions are complex events, but a rate this significantly higher than the global average suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This is not just about individual errors; it alerts to a potential weakness in the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation.
The institution's Z-score of 0.132 reflects a systemic pattern shared at the national level (Z-score: 0.045), but its higher value indicates a greater exposure to this risk. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this disproportionately high rate signals a concerning tendency towards scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global community.
The institution's Z-score of -0.067 is in close alignment with the national average of -0.024, indicating a level of risk that is statistically normal for its context and size. This low-risk profile suggests that, on the whole, the institution's researchers are exercising appropriate due diligence in selecting dissemination channels for their work. The data does not point to a systemic issue with publications in journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, which is a positive sign for its reputational management.
A Z-score of -1.146 places the institution in a very low-risk category, consistent with the low-risk national standard (Z-score: -0.721). This absence of risk signals is a clear strength, indicating that the institution effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' or political authorship practices. The data suggests that author lists are generally commensurate with genuine contributions, reinforcing transparency and individual accountability in its research output.
The institution demonstrates exceptional performance in this area with a Z-score of -1.417, indicating a total operational silence of risk signals, even below the already strong national average of -0.809. This is a significant strength, suggesting that the institution's scientific prestige is not dependent on external partners but is structurally sound and driven by genuine internal capacity. The high impact of research led by its own authors confirms that its excellence metrics result from real intellectual leadership, ensuring long-term scientific sustainability.
With a Z-score of 0.579, the institution shows higher exposure to this risk compared to the national average of 0.425, though both operate within a medium-risk context. This indicates that the center is more prone to showing alert signals related to extreme individual publication volumes. While high productivity can reflect leadership, this indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality. It points to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record and warrant a review of authorship policies.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is very low and aligns with the low-risk national standard (Z-score: -0.010), demonstrating low-profile consistency. This absence of risk signals indicates a healthy and limited reliance on its own publication channels. By primarily seeking external validation, the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, confirming that its output undergoes independent, competitive peer review.
The institution's Z-score of -0.332 shows a slight divergence from the national profile, which is in a very low-risk category (Z-score: -0.515). While the institution's risk level is low, it does show faint signals of risk activity that are less apparent in the rest of the country. This suggests a minor presence of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' where studies might be divided into minimal publishable units to inflate productivity. Although not a major concern, it is an area to monitor to ensure that the focus remains on publishing significant new knowledge rather than on publication volume.
