| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.748 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.117 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.187 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.248 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.160 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.601 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
1.207 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.597 | -0.515 |
Shandong Normal University presents a robust scientific profile, characterized by a low overall risk score of 0.096, indicating a generally healthy integrity framework punctuated by specific areas requiring strategic attention. The institution demonstrates exemplary control in key areas of research practice, particularly in its minimal rates of redundant output, publication in institutional journals, and avoidance of discontinued publishing venues. These strengths provide a solid foundation for academic quality. However, moderate risk signals in the rates of multiple affiliations, retractions, institutional self-citation, and hyperprolific authorship suggest vulnerabilities that could, if unaddressed, challenge the institution's commitment to research excellence and social responsibility. These risks stand in contrast to the university's strong competitive positioning in several key disciplines, as evidenced by SCImago Institutions Rankings data, which places it among the top 100 institutions in China for Psychology, Computer Science, Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, and Agricultural and Biological Sciences. To fully align its operational integrity with its thematic strengths, the university is encouraged to implement targeted governance and training initiatives aimed at mitigating the identified risks, thereby ensuring its pursuit of knowledge is both impactful and unimpeachably sound.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 0.748, a notable contrast to the national average of -0.062. This suggests a moderate deviation from the national standard, indicating that the university shows a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the significantly higher rate at the institution warrants a review. This pattern can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," and it is crucial to ensure that all declared affiliations correspond to substantive and transparent collaborative work.
With a Z-score of 0.117, the institution shows a higher incidence of retractions compared to the national average of -0.050. This value points to a greater sensitivity to the factors leading to publication withdrawal than is typical for its environment. Retractions can be complex events, and some may reflect a healthy process of scientific self-correction. However, a rate that is systemically higher than the national benchmark suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be facing challenges. This serves as an alert to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating that a qualitative review of the causes is necessary to rule out recurring methodological issues or malpractice.
The institution's Z-score of 0.187 is considerably higher than the national average of 0.045, even though both fall within a medium-risk context. This indicates a high level of exposure, suggesting the institution is more prone to this behavior than its peers. A certain degree of self-citation is natural, reflecting deep expertise in a specific research line. However, this disproportionately high rate signals a risk of forming a scientific 'echo chamber,' where the institution's work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. Such a pattern may lead to an endogamous inflation of impact, where academic influence is shaped more by internal dynamics than by recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution demonstrates a prudent profile in its choice of publication venues, with a Z-score of -0.248, which is more favorable than the national average of -0.024. This result indicates that the university manages its publication processes with greater rigor than the national standard. By effectively avoiding journals that have been discontinued for failing to meet international ethical or quality standards, the institution actively mitigates severe reputational risks. This strong performance suggests a high level of due diligence and information literacy among its researchers, protecting institutional resources from being wasted on predatory or low-quality publishing practices.
With a Z-score of -0.160, the institution's rate of hyper-authored output is higher than the national average of -0.721, despite both being in a low-risk range. This differential points to an incipient vulnerability, showing early signals that warrant review before they escalate. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' collaborations, a higher-than-average tendency outside these contexts can be an early indicator of author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. This signal encourages a proactive review to ensure authorship practices remain transparent and are based on substantive contributions, distinguishing necessary large-scale collaboration from honorary attributions.
The institution's Z-score of -0.601, compared to the country's score of -0.809, reveals a slight divergence from the national trend. A negative score in this indicator is a sign of strength, indicating that the impact of research led by the institution is higher than its overall average impact. This demonstrates robust internal capacity and intellectual leadership. The divergence arises because this leadership premium, while strong, is slightly less pronounced than the exceptional national average. The institution is therefore in a very healthy position, showing that its scientific prestige is structural and endogenous, though there is room to align even more closely with the country's top-tier performance in this area.
The institution registers a Z-score of 1.207 in this category, a figure significantly higher than the national average of 0.425. This result highlights a high exposure to this risk, suggesting the university is more prone to hosting authors with extreme publication volumes than its national peers. While high productivity can reflect leadership in large consortia, publication rates exceeding 50 articles per year often challenge the plausible limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator serves as a critical alert for potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution exhibits low-profile consistency and strong integrity, with a Z-score of -0.268, which is significantly better than the national average of -0.010. This absence of risk signals aligns with, and improves upon, the national standard. By avoiding over-reliance on its own journals, the university effectively sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production is validated through independent, external peer review, which strengthens its global visibility and confirms its commitment to competitive, merit-based dissemination rather than using internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication.
The institution's performance in this area is exemplary, showing a total operational silence with a Z-score of -0.597. This value indicates an absence of risk signals that is even more pronounced than the already strong national average of -0.515. This result strongly suggests that the practice of artificially dividing a single study into 'minimal publishable units' to inflate productivity is not a concern at the university. Instead, it points to an institutional culture that values the generation of significant new knowledge over the mere accumulation of publication credits, thereby contributing responsibly to the scientific record and respecting the academic review system.
