| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.233 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.493 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.228 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.641 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.233 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.265 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.218 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.501 | -0.515 |
Xian Shiyou University demonstrates a robust overall scientific integrity profile, reflected in its global risk score of 0.066. This indicates a strong foundation of responsible research practices. The institution exhibits particular strengths in areas requiring strict ethical oversight, with very low risk signals in Hyper-Authored Output, Hyperprolific Authors, and Output in Institutional Journals. These results point to effective internal governance and a culture that prioritizes accountability. The university's academic excellence is most prominent in the fields of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Energy, and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, a cluster of medium-risk indicators—specifically concerning retracted output, institutional self-citation, publication in discontinued journals, and redundant publications—presents a strategic challenge. These vulnerabilities could undermine the credibility of its strongest research areas and contradict the principles of excellence and global impact inherent to any leading academic institution. To secure its reputation and ensure its scientific contributions are both impactful and unimpeachable, it is recommended that the university focuses on targeted interventions to address these specific areas of concern, thereby aligning its operational practices with its evident research strengths.
The institution registers a Z-score of -0.233, which is more favorable than the national average of -0.062. This prudent profile suggests that the university manages its affiliation processes with greater rigor than the national standard. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the institution's lower-than-average score indicates a well-controlled environment, effectively avoiding practices that could be perceived as strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," thereby reinforcing the transparency of its collaborative footprint.
With a Z-score of 0.493, the institution shows a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.050. This suggests a greater sensitivity to risk factors leading to retractions compared to its national peers. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the country's baseline suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be facing systemic challenges. This vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture could point to recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to prevent reputational damage.
The university's Z-score for this indicator is 0.228, which is notably higher than the national average of 0.045. This indicates a high exposure to the risks associated with this practice, suggesting the institution is more prone to showing alert signals than its environment. While some self-citation reflects the continuity of research, this disproportionately high rate can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' It warns of a potential for endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence might be oversized by internal dynamics rather than validated by the broader global scientific community.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.641, a significant departure from the national average of -0.024. This moderate deviation indicates a greater institutional sensitivity to risk factors in journal selection than its peers. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in choosing dissemination channels. This score indicates that a portion of the university's scientific output is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing it to severe reputational risks and highlighting an urgent need for improved information literacy to avoid predatory practices.
The institution demonstrates an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.233, well below the national average of -0.721. This low-profile consistency shows an absence of risk signals that aligns with the national standard for responsible authorship. The data confirms that the university's authorship practices are transparent and accountable, successfully distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and potentially problematic 'honorary' or political authorship, thereby reinforcing the integrity of its research contributions.
With a Z-score of -0.265, the institution shows a slight divergence from the national Z-score of -0.809. This indicates the presence of minor risk signals related to impact dependency that are not as prevalent across the rest of the country. A positive gap can suggest that scientific prestige is dependent on external partners rather than being structurally generated from within. The observed value, while low, invites a strategic reflection on whether the institution's excellence metrics result from its own internal capacity and intellectual leadership or from its positioning in collaborations where it does not lead.
The university's Z-score of -1.218 is exceptionally low, particularly when contrasted with the national medium-risk average of 0.425. This demonstrates a clear preventive isolation, where the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its national environment. The data strongly suggests that the university fosters a culture that prioritizes quality over sheer quantity, effectively mitigating risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without meaningful intellectual contribution. This reinforces the integrity of the individual scientific record at the institution.
The institution maintains a Z-score of -0.268, which is significantly lower than the national average of -0.010. This low-profile consistency demonstrates an absence of risk signals and aligns with the national standard of academic openness. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the university mitigates potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, enhancing its global visibility and validating its research through standard competitive channels.
The institution's Z-score of 0.501 constitutes a monitoring alert, as it is an unusually high risk level for a national standard that sits at -0.515. This stark contrast requires a review of the underlying causes. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications often indicates data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' a practice of dividing a single study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This high value warns that such practices may be distorting the scientific evidence produced by the institution and overburdening the review system, prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
