| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.685 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.400 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.482 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.641 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.680 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.145 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.018 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -0.515 |
Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.264 that indicates a performance generally superior to the national average. The institution exhibits exceptional strengths in maintaining very low rates of retracted output, redundant publications, and dependency on institutional journals, showcasing a solid foundation of research quality and ethical conduct. A key area of resilience is its effective mitigation of systemic national risks related to self-citation and hyperprolific authorship. The primary vulnerability identified is a medium-risk rate of publication in discontinued journals, which warrants strategic attention. These integrity metrics support the university's strong academic standing, particularly in its highest-ranked fields according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, including Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, Engineering, and Medicine. The institution's commitment to sound scientific practice directly aligns with its mission to uphold "moral education and talent cultivation as the foundation." However, the risk associated with discontinued journals could inadvertently undermine this mission by exposing researchers to predatory practices. To further solidify its leadership, the university is encouraged to build upon its excellent integrity framework by implementing targeted training on discerning high-quality publication venues, thus ensuring its research ecosystem remains a model of excellence and responsibility.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is -0.685, which is notably lower than the national average of -0.062. This reflects a prudent profile, suggesting 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 a reduced risk of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” thereby reinforcing a culture of transparent and accurate academic attribution.
With a Z-score of -0.400, the institution maintains a very low rate of retractions, positioning it favorably against the country's low-risk score of -0.050. This demonstrates low-profile consistency, where the near absence of risk signals aligns with and improves upon the national standard. This suggests that the university's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are robust and effective. Such a low rate indicates that the institutional culture successfully prevents the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that could lead to systemic vulnerabilities, showcasing a strong commitment to research integrity.
The university shows a Z-score of -0.482, a low-risk value that contrasts significantly with the national medium-risk average of 0.045. This gap highlights the institution's resilience, as its internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the country's systemic risks of endogamous citation patterns. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but by maintaining a low rate, the university avoids the concerning signals of scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' This ensures its academic influence is validated by the broader global community rather than being artificially inflated by internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of 0.641 places it in a medium-risk category, representing a moderate deviation from the country's low-risk average of -0.024. This indicates a greater sensitivity to risk factors in publication channel selection compared to its national peers. This finding constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied when choosing dissemination venues. A high Z-score indicates that a significant portion of 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 information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution's Z-score of -0.680 is closely aligned with the national average of -0.721, indicating a state of statistical normality. This low-risk level is as expected for its context and size, suggesting that its co-authorship practices are consistent with national norms. The data does not point to widespread issues of author list inflation or the use of 'honorary' authorships, which can dilute individual accountability and transparency. The university's collaborative patterns appear to be well-regulated and appropriate for its research disciplines.
With a Z-score of -1.145, the institution demonstrates total operational silence in this risk indicator, performing even better than the country's already very low average of -0.809. This exceptionally low score signifies a strong and healthy balance, indicating that the impact of research led by the institution is congruent with the impact of its overall collaborative output. This suggests that the university's scientific prestige is structural and derived from genuine internal capacity, rather than being an exogenous prestige dependent on collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership.
The university's Z-score of -0.018 reflects a low-risk profile, which is a sign of institutional resilience when compared to the national medium-risk average of 0.425. This suggests that the institution's control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic pressures for hyper-productivity that are more prevalent in the country. By maintaining a low rate, the university avoids the risks associated with extreme individual publication volumes, such as coercive authorship or 'salami slicing,' thereby promoting a healthy balance between quantity and quality and upholding the integrity of its scientific record.
The institution has a Z-score of -0.268, a very low-risk value that is significantly below the country's low-risk average of -0.010. This demonstrates low-profile consistency, as the absence of risk signals surpasses the national standard. This indicates a strong preference for external, independent peer review over in-house publication channels. By avoiding dependence on its own journals, the university effectively mitigates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, ensuring its research is validated competitively and achieves greater global visibility.
With an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.186, the institution exhibits total operational silence in this area, far exceeding the country's very low-risk average of -0.515. This result points to a robust institutional culture that prioritizes the publication of significant, coherent studies over artificially inflating productivity metrics. The complete absence of signals related to data fragmentation or 'salami slicing' underscores a commitment to generating meaningful new knowledge and avoiding practices that overburden the scientific review system with minimally publishable units.
