Tongji University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Tongji University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.089 that indicates a performance well-aligned with global standards of responsible research. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining intellectual leadership, as evidenced by a minimal gap between its overall impact and the impact of its self-led research, and in avoiding problematic practices like redundant publication. However, areas requiring strategic attention have been identified, particularly in the rates of retracted output, institutional self-citation, hyperprolific authorship, and publication in institutional journals, which show medium-risk signals. These indicators, while not critical, suggest vulnerabilities that could, if unaddressed, compromise the institution's reputation. This profile is set against a backdrop of world-class excellence in several key disciplines, with SCImago Institutions Rankings placing the university in the global elite for Business, Management and Accounting (Top 5), Environmental Science (Top 10), and Engineering (Top 10). To fully align its operational integrity with its academic prestige, it is crucial that the university addresses these moderate risks, as they could undermine the principles of excellence and social responsibility inherent in any leading HEI's mission. A proactive focus on reinforcing quality control and promoting external validation will ensure that its outstanding contributions are built upon a foundation of unimpeachable scientific integrity.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The university's Z-score for multiple affiliations is -0.024, slightly higher than the national average of -0.062. This score suggests an incipient vulnerability, indicating the presence of signals that, while currently low, warrant review before they escalate. Multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of researcher mobility or partnerships. However, this slight upward trend compared to the national context could signal early-stage strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping." Monitoring this indicator is advisable to ensure that collaborative practices remain transparent and are driven by genuine scientific partnership rather than metric optimization.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 0.023, the university shows a moderate deviation from the national benchmark (Z-score: -0.050), indicating a greater sensitivity to risk factors in this area than its peers. Retractions are complex events; some result from the honest correction of unintentional errors, signifying responsible supervision. However, a Z-score significantly higher than the national average suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This rate alerts to a 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 safeguard the scientific record.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university's rate of institutional self-citation (Z-score: 0.143) indicates high exposure to this risk, standing notably above the national average (Z-score: 0.045). While a certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines, this disproportionately high rate can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' This value warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than validated by sufficient external scrutiny from the global scientific community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution demonstrates a prudent profile in its selection of publication venues, with a Z-score of -0.145, which is markedly lower than the national average of -0.024. This indicates that the university manages its processes with more rigor than the national standard. By effectively avoiding discontinued journals, the institution mitigates severe reputational risks and demonstrates strong due diligence in its dissemination strategy, ensuring that its research output is channeled through credible media that meet international ethical and quality standards.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.907, significantly below the national average of -0.721, the university exhibits a prudent profile regarding hyper-authorship. This suggests that the institution manages its authorship practices with more rigor than the national standard. This low rate indicates that the university effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration in "Big Science" contexts and potentially problematic practices like author list inflation or 'honorary' authorships, thereby upholding individual accountability and transparency in its research contributions.

Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership

The university shows total operational silence in this indicator, with a Z-score of -1.046, which is even lower than the already low national average of -0.809. This exceptional result signals an absence of risk and points to a highly sustainable research model. It demonstrates that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and derived from its own internal capacity, as the impact of its research is not dependent on collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This is a clear sign of robust, independent, and endogenous scientific strength.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The university's Z-score for hyperprolific authors is 0.447, which is nearly identical to the national average of 0.425. This alignment points to a systemic pattern, where the risk level reflects shared practices or norms at a national level. While high productivity can evidence leadership, extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over scientific integrity.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The university's Z-score of 0.063 for output in its own journals represents a moderate deviation from the national context (Z-score: -0.010), suggesting a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. In-house journals can be valuable, but excessive dependence on them raises conflicts of interest. This higher-than-average rate warns of the risk of academic endogamy, where scientific production might be bypassing independent external peer review. This practice could limit the global visibility of its research and may indicate the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts without standard competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of -0.508, the university's rate of redundant output is extremely low, though it registers as residual noise when compared to the slightly lower national average of -0.515. The risk is minimal, but this score indicates the first faint signals in an otherwise inert environment. While the institution shows excellent control in preventing 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a study into minimal publishable units to inflate productivity—this minor signal suggests that continued vigilance is warranted to maintain this high standard of research integrity.