Xi'an International University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Xi'an International University presents a profile of notable strengths in research integrity alongside specific, significant vulnerabilities that require strategic attention. With an overall integrity score of 0.443, the institution demonstrates a dual reality: on one hand, it exhibits exemplary control over authorship and citation practices, with very low risk in institutional self-citation, hyper-authorship, hyperprolific authors, and publication in institutional journals. These strengths suggest robust internal governance. On the other hand, medium-risk indicators in multiple affiliations, retracted output, and publication in discontinued journals point to systemic weaknesses in quality control and collaboration strategies. The most critical alert is the significant gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work where it holds intellectual leadership, suggesting a dependency on external partners that could undermine long-term scientific autonomy. These findings are contextualized by the university's strong positioning in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly in Energy (ranked 193rd in China), Economics, Econometrics and Finance (287th), and Business, Management and Accounting (293rd). To fulfill its ambitious mission to be "The fish that evolves into a dragon," the university must address these integrity gaps. A true transformation into a leading institution requires not only collaborative success but also the cultivation of independent intellectual strength and an unwavering commitment to quality, ensuring that its ascent is built on a foundation of sustainable and unimpeachable scientific practice. By focusing on mitigating these identified risks, the university can align its operational integrity with its strategic vision, accelerating its evolution into a recognized leader.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of 0.853 for this indicator deviates moderately from the national benchmark (Z-score: -0.062), indicating a greater local sensitivity to this particular risk. This suggests that the university's rate of multiple affiliations is higher than that of its national peers. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping." The observed deviation warrants a review of affiliation policies to ensure that they reflect genuine scientific partnerships rather than practices aimed at artificially boosting institutional metrics.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 0.418, the institution shows a moderate level of risk that contrasts with the low-risk profile of the country (Z-score: -0.050). This discrepancy suggests that the university's quality control mechanisms may be facing challenges not seen across the national system. A rate of retractions significantly higher than the average alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. Beyond isolated incidents, this pattern may indicate recurring methodological weaknesses or a lack of rigorous pre-publication supervision, signaling an urgent need for qualitative verification by management to strengthen research integrity protocols.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution demonstrates exceptional performance in this area, with a Z-score of -1.634, indicating a very low risk that effectively isolates it from the medium-risk dynamics observed nationally (Z-score: 0.045). This result shows a strong commitment to external validation and integration within the global scientific community. By avoiding high rates of self-citation, the university successfully mitigates the risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers' or endogamous impact inflation. This practice confirms that the institution's academic influence is driven by broad community recognition rather than being oversized by internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 2.317 represents a moderate deviation from the national standard (Z-score: -0.024), highlighting a greater propensity to publish in questionable venues compared to its peers. This constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. A high score indicates that a significant portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. This exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need to enhance information literacy among researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.290, the institution maintains a very low-risk profile, consistent with and even stronger than the low-risk national standard (Z-score: -0.721). The complete absence of risk signals in this area demonstrates a healthy and transparent approach to authorship. This performance indicates that the university's research practices are well-aligned with disciplinary norms, successfully avoiding issues like author list inflation or the inclusion of 'honorary' authors. It reflects a culture where individual accountability is preserved and authorship is awarded based on genuine intellectual contribution.

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

A significant monitoring alert is raised by the institution's Z-score of 1.712, a medium-risk level that is highly unusual when compared to the country's very low-risk average (Z-score: -0.809). This wide positive gap signals a potential sustainability risk, suggesting that the institution's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, not structural. The data invites deep reflection on whether its high-impact metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise intellectual leadership. Closing this gap is crucial for building a robust and autonomous research identity.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution shows an exemplary, risk-free profile with a Z-score of -1.413, effectively insulating itself from the medium-risk trend prevalent at the national level (Z-score: 0.425). This preventive isolation demonstrates a strong institutional culture that prioritizes substance over sheer volume. The absence of hyperprolific authors indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, steering clear of risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation. This commitment ensures that the institutional focus remains on the integrity of the scientific record rather than the inflation of productivity metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 reflects a very low-risk profile that is fully consistent with the low-risk national standard (Z-score: -0.010). This alignment shows a clear commitment to engaging with the broader scientific community through external, independent peer review. By minimizing reliance on in-house journals, the university avoids potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This strategy enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, ensuring its work is validated through standard competitive processes rather than internal 'fast tracks'.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of -0.036, the institution exhibits a low level of risk, yet this represents a slight divergence from the national environment, which shows a near-total absence of this behavior (Z-score: -0.515). This finding suggests the emergence of early, non-critical signals of risk activity that are not apparent in the rest of the country. While not alarming, this warrants monitoring for practices like 'salami slicing,' where a single study is fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. Proactive oversight can prevent this from escalating and ensure research contributions remain significant and coherent.