| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.279 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.399 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.363 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.254 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.273 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.133 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.533 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.657 | -0.515 |
Shenyang Normal University presents a commendable overall integrity profile, reflected in its low global risk score of 0.190. The institution demonstrates exceptional control and adherence to best practices in several key areas, showing very low risk in Hyper-Authored Output, the Gap in Impact Leadership, Output in Institutional Journals, and Redundant Output. These strengths indicate robust internal governance and a solid foundation for research quality. However, a cluster of indicators registers at a medium-risk level—specifically, the rates of Multiple Affiliations, Retracted Output, Institutional Self-Citation, Output in Discontinued Journals, and Hyperprolific Authors—all of which are notably higher than the national averages for China. Thematically, the university shows its strongest research positioning in Energy, Earth and Planetary Sciences, Social Sciences, and Physics and Astronomy, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. The identified medium-risk signals, while not critical, could potentially undermine the institution's pursuit of academic excellence and social responsibility. A proactive review of policies and practices in these specific areas is recommended to ensure that its operational integrity fully aligns with its clear thematic strengths and research ambitions, thereby safeguarding its long-term reputation and impact.
The institution's Z-score of 1.279 for multiple affiliations shows a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.062, indicating a greater sensitivity to this risk factor compared to its peers. This pattern suggests a need to review the underlying causes. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, a disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The observed value suggests it would be prudent to analyze affiliation patterns to ensure they consistently reflect genuine, substantive collaborations rather than "affiliation shopping" to boost rankings.
With a Z-score of 0.399, the institution's rate of retracted publications is higher than the national standard (-0.050), pointing to a moderate deviation that warrants attention. This suggests that the institution's pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be less effective than those of its national peers. A rate significantly higher than the average alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to prevent reputational harm and reinforce research quality standards.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is 0.363, which is considerably higher than the national average of 0.045. This indicates a high exposure to this risk factor, suggesting the institution is more prone to this behavior than its environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but disproportionately high rates can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. This high value 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 scientific community.
The institution registers a Z-score of 0.254 for output in discontinued journals, a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.024. This suggests a greater institutional sensitivity to the risk of publishing in low-quality or predatory outlets. This score constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, as it indicates that a significant portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on questionable publication practices.
The institution demonstrates excellent control over authorship practices, with a Z-score of -1.273, which indicates a very low risk that is fully consistent with the low-risk national standard (-0.721). This absence of risk signals confirms that the institution effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration in "Big Science" and problematic practices like author list inflation. This result reflects strong governance that upholds individual accountability and transparency in authorship, reinforcing the credibility of its research.
With an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.133, far below the already low national average of -0.809, the institution shows a total operational silence regarding impact dependency. This outstanding result indicates that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and self-generated, not reliant on external partners for impact. The data confirms a high degree of scientific autonomy and robust internal capacity, as the excellence metrics result from genuine intellectual leadership rather than strategic positioning in collaborations led by others.
The institution's Z-score of 0.533 for hyperprolific authors is higher than the national average of 0.425, signaling a high exposure to the associated risks. This suggests the institution is more prone than its peers to hosting authors with extreme publication volumes. Such productivity levels can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to an imbalance between quantity and quality. This indicator alerts to potential risks such as coercive authorship, 'salami slicing,' or honorary authorship, which prioritize metric inflation over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution maintains a very low rate of publication in its own journals, with a Z-score of -0.268. This low-profile consistency aligns perfectly with the national environment, where the risk is also low (Z-score -0.010). This practice demonstrates a strong commitment to external validation and global visibility. By avoiding potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, the institution ensures its research undergoes independent peer review, thereby strengthening its credibility and avoiding the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication.
The institution's Z-score of -0.657 signifies a total operational silence in this area, indicating an almost complete absence of redundant publications and a performance even stronger than the low-risk national average (-0.515). This is a clear sign of robust editorial standards and a focus on substantive contributions. It demonstrates that the institution effectively discourages the practice of fragmenting studies into minimal publishable units, prioritizing the generation of significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of productivity metrics.
