Jiangsu Normal University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Jiangsu Normal University demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.364 indicating performance well above the baseline standard. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of retracted output, minimal risk of dependency on external collaborators for impact, and virtually non-existent publication in its own journals, reflecting strong internal quality controls and a commitment to external validation. The main area for strategic review is a moderate deviation from the national norm in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, which warrants further analysis. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's scientific excellence is particularly prominent in key thematic areas such as Chemistry (ranked 115th in China), Business, Management and Accounting (148th), and Economics, Econometrics and Finance (154th). Although the institution's formal mission was not available for this analysis, this strong integrity performance and focused academic leadership align with the universal principles of research excellence and social responsibility. To further solidify its standing, it is recommended that the university investigate the drivers behind its multiple affiliation patterns while continuing to build on its solid foundation of ethical research practices.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of 0.252, which contrasts with the national average of -0.062. This moderate deviation indicates that the university shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors related to affiliation than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the university's higher rate suggests a need to ensure that these practices are driven by genuine collaboration rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping." Given that the national context shows low risk, this specific institutional trend warrants a review of internal policies to maintain transparency and academic integrity in how collaborations are represented.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.447, the institution demonstrates an exemplary record in this area, significantly below the national average of -0.050. This reflects a low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with and even surpasses the national standard for publication integrity. A low rate of retractions suggests that the university's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are highly effective. This performance indicates a strong integrity culture and a high degree of methodological rigor, minimizing the occurrence of both unintentional errors and potential malpractice, thereby reinforcing its scientific credibility.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university's Z-score of -0.084 is notably healthier than the national average of 0.045. This demonstrates strong institutional resilience, as its control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks of academic endogamy observed at the national level. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's low rate indicates that its research is validated by the broader scientific community, avoiding the "echo chambers" that can arise from excessive self-reference. This performance suggests that the institution's academic influence is based on genuine external recognition rather than being inflated by internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution maintains a Z-score of -0.180, a more favorable figure compared to the national average of -0.024. This prudent profile suggests that the university manages its publication processes with more rigor than the national standard. By effectively avoiding discontinued journals, the institution demonstrates strong due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This protects it from the severe reputational risks associated with "predatory" or low-quality publishing and indicates a high level of information literacy among its researchers, ensuring resources are channeled toward impactful and reputable venues.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.066, the institution shows a significantly lower incidence of hyper-authorship than the national average of -0.721. This prudent profile indicates that the university's authorship practices are more rigorous and transparent than the national standard. Outside of "Big Science" contexts where large author lists are common, a low rate of hyper-authorship suggests a culture that values clear individual accountability and discourages dilutive practices like "honorary" or political authorship, thereby strengthening the transparency and integrity of its research contributions.

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

The institution's Z-score of -1.174 is exceptionally low, surpassing the already strong national average of -0.809. This signals a state of total operational silence, with an absence of risk signals even below the national benchmark. A low gap indicates that the university's scientific prestige is structural and sustainable, stemming from its own internal capacity rather than being dependent on external partners for impact. This healthy balance demonstrates that the institution exercises intellectual leadership in its collaborations and that its high-impact research is a direct result of its own scholarly strength.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The university exhibits a Z-score of -0.626, a figure that stands in stark contrast to the national average of 0.425. This difference highlights the institution's resilience, as its internal controls appear to effectively mitigate the systemic risks of hyperprolificacy seen across the country. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the credibility of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's low score in this area suggests a healthy balance between quantity and quality, successfully avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, thus prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a near-total absence of this risk indicator, performing significantly better than the national average of -0.010. This low-profile consistency demonstrates an alignment with national standards of external validation, but with even greater rigor. By avoiding dependence on its own journals, the university effectively sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which enhances its global visibility and confirms that its researchers compete successfully in standard competitive validation channels.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.262 marks a slight divergence from the national average of -0.515. This indicates the emergence of risk signals within the university that are not apparent in the broader national context, which shows very low risk. While the institution's current risk level is low, this divergence warrants attention. It may point to early signs of "salami slicing," the practice of fragmenting a single study into multiple publications to artificially inflate productivity. Monitoring this trend is advisable to ensure that the institutional focus remains on producing significant new knowledge rather than prioritizing publication volume, which can distort scientific evidence.