| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.096 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.043 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.087 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.162 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.004 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.650 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.650 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.274 | -0.515 |
Shanghai University demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.117, which indicates a performance well within the parameters of responsible research practices. The institution's primary strength lies in its comprehensive control over most integrity indicators, with eight of the nine metrics falling into the 'low' or 'very low' risk categories. This solid foundation is particularly evident in the areas of Institutional Self-Citation and Output in Institutional Journals, where the university significantly outperforms national averages, signaling a strong commitment to external validation and global impact. This operational excellence supports its outstanding performance in key thematic areas identified by the SCImago Institutions Rankings, including Mathematics, Engineering, Computer Science, and Energy, where it ranks among the global top 100. However, a moderate risk signal in the Rate of Hyperprolific Authors suggests a potential imbalance between productivity and quality that could, if unaddressed, subtly undermine the institutional mission to develop "mentally enlightened" talents equipped for societal challenges. Fostering a culture that prioritizes substantive contribution over sheer volume is crucial for aligning its impressive research output with its core educational and social responsibilities. Overall, the university is in a strong position to leverage its integrity framework as a strategic asset, reinforcing its reputation for excellence and ensuring its contributions are both impactful and trustworthy.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.096, a value indicating a low risk that is even more controlled than the national average of -0.062. This demonstrates a prudent and well-managed approach to academic collaborations, surpassing the already rigorous national standard. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the university's contained rate suggests its collaborative practices are transparent and well-defined, effectively avoiding any perception of strategic "affiliation shopping" designed to artificially inflate institutional credit.
With a Z-score of -0.043, the university's rate of retracted publications is low and statistically aligned with the national context (Z-score: -0.050). This result reflects a normal and expected level of activity for an institution of its size and scope. Retractions are complex events, and a controlled rate can signify responsible supervision and the honest correction of unintentional errors. The data suggests that the university's quality control mechanisms are functioning as expected, without evidence of the systemic failures or recurring malpractice that a higher rate might indicate.
The university exhibits strong institutional resilience in this area, with a low-risk Z-score of -0.087, in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.045. This performance indicates that the institution's control mechanisms effectively mitigate the systemic risks of academic insularity present in the wider environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university successfully avoids the "echo chambers" and endogamous impact inflation that can arise from disproportionately high rates. This result suggests that the institution's academic influence is genuinely validated by the global community rather than being oversized by internal dynamics.
The institution demonstrates a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.162, indicating a significantly lower rate of publication in discontinued journals compared to the national average of -0.024. This superior performance highlights a rigorous due diligence process in selecting dissemination channels. A high proportion of output in such journals can be a critical alert for reputational risk, but the university's low rate confirms its commitment to channeling its scientific production through media that meet international ethical and quality standards, thereby avoiding predatory practices and ensuring the effective use of research resources.
With a Z-score of -1.004, the institution shows an exceptionally low incidence of hyper-authored publications, a figure that is notably more controlled than the already low national average of -0.721. This reflects a highly prudent and rigorous management of authorship practices. While extensive author lists are legitimate in "Big Science" contexts, the university's very low rate across all disciplines suggests a strong culture of accountability, effectively preventing the dilution of individual responsibility and discouraging "honorary" or political authorship, thus ensuring transparency in its collaborative work.
The institution's Z-score of -0.650 indicates a low-risk gap, yet it represents a slight divergence from the national benchmark, which sits at a very low -0.809. This shows a minor signal of risk activity that is not prevalent in the rest of the country. A wide gap can signal a sustainability risk where scientific prestige is dependent on external partners rather than internal capacity. While the university's gap is small, this subtle difference suggests a modest reliance on collaborations for impact and invites a strategic reflection on strengthening internal research leadership to ensure its excellent metrics are fully structural and endogenous.
The university's Z-score of 0.650 places it in the medium-risk category, a level that is directionally consistent with the national average of 0.425 but indicates a higher exposure to this particular vulnerability. This suggests the institution is more prone to showing alert signals in this area than its peers. While high productivity can reflect leadership, extreme individual publication volumes challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This elevated rate serves as an alert to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, which prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution operates with a very low rate of publication in its own journals, a signal of integrity that is even stronger than the low-risk national average of -0.010. This absence of risk signals aligns perfectly with a national context that already favors external publication. By minimizing its reliance on in-house journals, the university effectively avoids potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, where production might bypass independent peer review. This practice ensures its research is validated through standard competitive channels, maximizing its global visibility and credibility.
The institution shows a low-risk Z-score of -0.274 in this indicator, which nonetheless marks a slight divergence from the national environment, where this risk is virtually non-existent (Z-score: -0.515). This suggests the presence of minor risk signals that do not appear in the rest of the country. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate data fragmentation or "salami slicing" to artificially inflate productivity. Although the university's rate is low, its presence warrants attention to reinforce a culture that prioritizes the generation of significant new knowledge over the maximization of publication volume.
