| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.591 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.343 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.216 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.058 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.097 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.196 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.227 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.101 | -0.515 |
Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine demonstrates a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.331 that indicates a performance significantly superior to the global average. The institution's primary strength lies in its exceptional control over internal research practices, showing very low risk in areas such as Institutional Self-Citation, Hyperprolific Authorship, and Redundant Output, often in stark contrast to higher risk trends observed nationally. This suggests a culture that prioritizes genuine academic contribution over metric inflation. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, this commitment to quality underpins the university's strong positioning in key thematic areas, particularly in Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, Psychology, and Medicine. The only notable vulnerability is a medium-risk signal related to publication in discontinued journals, which could, if unaddressed, subtly undermine the institution's otherwise excellent reputation. To fully align its operational practices with a mission of excellence and social responsibility, the university is advised to implement targeted training on selecting high-quality publication venues, thereby securing its standing as a leader in both research and scientific ethics.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.591, a value indicating lower risk than the national average of -0.062. This prudent profile suggests that the university manages its affiliation processes with more rigor than the national standard. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this controlled rate indicates effective governance that prevents strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” ensuring that credit is claimed transparently and appropriately.
With a Z-score of -0.343, the institution demonstrates a lower rate of retractions compared to the national average of -0.050. This favorable comparison points to a prudent and effective approach to research oversight. The data suggests that the institution's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are functioning robustly, minimizing the incidence of errors that could lead to retractions. This performance is a positive sign of a healthy integrity culture and strong methodological rigor, which protects and enhances the university's scientific reputation.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is -1.216, a signal of very low risk that contrasts sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.045. This demonstrates a remarkable case of preventive isolation, where the university successfully avoids the risk dynamics prevalent in its environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this exceptionally low rate confirms that the institution is not operating within a scientific 'echo chamber.' Instead, it indicates that the institution's academic influence is validated by broad external scrutiny from the global community, rather than being inflated by endogamous or internal dynamics.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 1.058, a medium-risk signal that represents a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.024. This finding warrants attention, as it shows a greater sensitivity to this particular risk factor than its national peers. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score indicates that a portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for enhanced information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution's Z-score of -1.097 is notably lower than the national average of -0.721, reflecting a prudent and well-managed approach to authorship. This superior performance indicates that the university's processes are more rigorous than the national standard in this regard. The data suggests a successful distinction between necessary massive collaboration and 'honorary' or political authorship practices, thereby preventing the dilution of individual accountability and promoting transparency in crediting contributions.
With a Z-score of -1.196, the institution shows a near-total absence of risk signals, performing even better than the very low-risk national average of -0.809. This state of operational silence is a powerful indicator of scientific autonomy and sustainable prestige. It demonstrates that the institution's high-impact research is a result of its own structural capacity and intellectual leadership, rather than being dependent on external partners. This confirms that its scientific excellence is endogenous and self-sufficient, a key marker of a mature and leading research institution.
The institution's Z-score of -1.227 signifies a very low risk, standing in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.425. This reflects a clear preventive isolation from a problematic national trend. The university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment, suggesting a strong institutional culture that prioritizes quality and meaningful intellectual contribution over sheer publication volume. This effectively mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or 'salami slicing,' and ensures that authorship is assigned based on real participation, thereby safeguarding the integrity of its scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 indicates a very low-risk profile, which aligns well with the low-risk national context (Z-score of -0.010). This low-profile consistency demonstrates a healthy and appropriate use of in-house journals. By not depending excessively on its own publication channels, the university avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production largely undergoes independent external peer review, which enhances its global visibility and confirms its commitment to competitive, merit-based validation.
The institution achieves a Z-score of -1.101, indicating a complete absence of risk signals and a performance significantly better than the national average of -0.515. This exceptional result points to a research culture that values substantive contributions over artificially inflated productivity metrics. It suggests that the university's authors focus on publishing coherent, impactful studies rather than fragmenting their work into 'minimal publishable units.' This practice not only strengthens the reliability of the scientific evidence produced but also shows respect for the academic review system.
