| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.413 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.465 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.902 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.263 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.212 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.273 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.434 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.515 | -0.515 |
Shandong University of Science and Technology presents a balanced scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.134 indicating a performance largely in line with expected standards. The institution demonstrates significant strengths and robust control in several key areas, including extremely low rates of retracted output, hyper-authored publications, redundant publications, and output in its own journals, alongside a minimal gap between its overall impact and the impact of research it leads. These results signal a strong foundation of research quality and intellectual autonomy. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a higher-than-average propensity for institutional self-citation and publication in discontinued journals, as well as moderate signals related to multiple affiliations and hyperprolific authors. These vulnerabilities, while not critical, warrant review. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's scientific excellence is particularly pronounced in fields such as Earth and Planetary Sciences (ranked 56th globally), Mathematics (99th), Energy (159th), and Computer Science (199th). To protect and enhance this strong academic standing, it is crucial to address the identified integrity risks. Practices that could be perceived as inflating impact or lacking due diligence may conflict with the universal academic mission of pursuing excellence and social responsibility. By proactively managing these medium-risk indicators, the university can fortify its reputation and ensure its impressive research output is built upon an unshakeable foundation of scientific integrity.
The institution's Z-score of 0.413 for this indicator shows a moderate deviation from the national benchmark of -0.062. This suggests that the university exhibits a greater sensitivity to risk factors associated with multiple affiliations than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this divergence from the national trend warrants a closer look to ensure that all declared affiliations are substantive and not strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping.” A review of affiliation policies could help clarify guidelines and maintain transparency.
With a Z-score of -0.465, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of retracted publications, performing significantly better than the national average of -0.050. This low-profile consistency indicates that the university’s internal quality control mechanisms are not only effective but also exceed the national standard. The virtual absence of these risk signals suggests that processes for ensuring methodological rigor and research integrity prior to publication are robust, preventing the systemic failures that can lead to a high volume of retractions and protecting the institution's scientific reputation.
The institution's Z-score of 0.902 is notably higher than the national average of 0.045. This result suggests a high exposure to this particular risk, indicating the university is more prone to practices of institutional self-citation than its peers across the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this disproportionately high rate warns of potential scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This dynamic could lead to an endogamous inflation of impact, where academic influence appears oversized due to internal citation patterns rather than recognition from the global scientific community.
The university's Z-score of 0.263 marks a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.024, indicating a greater institutional sensitivity to this risk factor compared to its peers. This finding serves as a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. A significant presence in journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards exposes the institution to severe reputational risks. It suggests an urgent need to enhance information literacy among researchers to avoid channeling valuable scientific work and resources into 'predatory' or low-quality publications.
The institution shows exemplary performance with a Z-score of -1.212, which is substantially lower than the national average of -0.721. This demonstrates a consistent and low-risk profile in authorship practices, aligning with and even surpassing the national standard. The absence of signals related to inflated author lists suggests a culture of transparency and accountability, effectively mitigating the risks of 'honorary' authorships and ensuring that credit is assigned appropriately, thereby reinforcing the integrity of its collaborative research.
With a Z-score of -1.273, the institution displays a near-total absence of risk signals in this area, performing even better than the already strong national average of -0.809. This state of operational silence indicates that the institution's scientific prestige is structurally sound and not dependent on external partners for impact. The minimal gap between the impact of its overall output and the work it leads demonstrates robust internal capacity and strong intellectual leadership, confirming that its high standing is a result of its own sustainable research excellence.
The institution's Z-score of 0.434 is nearly identical to the national average of 0.425, suggesting that its performance on this indicator reflects a systemic pattern rather than an isolated institutional issue. This alignment points to shared practices or evaluation criteria at a national level that may encourage high publication volumes. This trend serves as an alert to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, as extreme productivity can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may be associated with risks such as coercive authorship or the prioritization of metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.010, indicating a consistent and very low-risk profile that surpasses the national standard. This minimal reliance on in-house journals demonstrates a strong commitment to seeking validation through independent, external peer review. By avoiding potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, the university enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, ensuring its scientific production is assessed through standard competitive channels.
The institution's Z-score of -0.515 is identical to the national average, reflecting a perfect synchrony with a national environment of maximum scientific security against this risk. This complete alignment indicates that the institution's research culture strongly discourages data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' The absence of these risk signals confirms a focus on publishing coherent, significant studies rather than artificially inflating productivity metrics, thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific evidence base and respecting the resources of the peer-review system.
