Yanbian University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Yanbian University demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.414 that indicates performance significantly better than the global average. This strong foundation is built upon exceptional control over key integrity indicators, particularly in preventing retractions, hyperprolific authorship, redundant publications, and academic endogamy. These strengths suggest a mature research governance framework. The primary area for strategic attention is the rate of publication in discontinued journals, which presents a medium risk and deviates from the national trend, warranting a review of dissemination policies. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's thematic strengths are most prominent in Veterinary, Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, and Agricultural and Biological Sciences. While a specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, the university's demonstrated commitment to research integrity aligns with the universal academic values of excellence and social responsibility. However, the noted vulnerability in journal selection could inadvertently undermine this position by associating high-quality research with low-credibility channels. A focused initiative to enhance information literacy and due diligence in publication choices would solidify the institution's reputational standing and ensure its thematic excellence is communicated with maximum, unblemished impact.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of -0.092 is statistically aligned with the national average of -0.062, indicating a risk level that is normal for its operational context. This suggests that the university's collaborative patterns and researcher mobility are in sync with prevailing national practices. While multiple affiliations can sometimes be used to artificially inflate institutional credit, the current rate at Yanbian University does not signal any such strategic behavior. Instead, it reflects a standard and expected level of engagement in partnerships, such as those between universities and teaching hospitals, or legitimate dual appointments, which is consistent with the national landscape.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.634, the institution exhibits a near-total absence of risk signals related to retracted publications, a performance that is even stronger than the country's already low-risk average (-0.050). This low-profile consistency points towards highly effective pre-publication quality control and supervision mechanisms. Retractions can sometimes reflect responsible error correction, but such a minimal rate strongly suggests that systemic failures, recurring malpractice, or a lack of methodological rigor are not present. This result is a clear indicator of a robust and healthy culture of scientific integrity within the university.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university demonstrates notable institutional resilience, with a low-risk Z-score of -0.327 in contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.045. This indicates that the institution's control mechanisms are successfully mitigating a systemic risk that is more prevalent across the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university effectively avoids the 'echo chambers' and endogamous impact inflation that can arise from disproportionately high rates. This prudent approach suggests that the institution's academic influence is validated by the broader global community rather than being sustained primarily by internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

A moderate deviation from the national standard is observed in this indicator, with the institution showing a medium-risk Z-score of 0.294 while the country maintains a low-risk profile (-0.024). This suggests the university is more sensitive than its peers to the risk of publishing in problematic venues. A high proportion of output in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This score indicates that a portion of the university's scientific production may be channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need to improve information literacy to avoid 'predatory' practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution maintains a prudent profile in managing authorship, with its low-risk Z-score of -1.083 showing more rigor than the national standard (-0.721). This superior performance indicates that the university is effectively distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and the risk of author list inflation. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science', their containment elsewhere prevents the dilution of individual accountability and transparency. The university's data suggests a healthy control over 'honorary' or political authorship practices, reinforcing the credibility of its collaborative work.

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

A slight divergence is noted, as the institution presents a low-risk signal (Z-score: -0.265) in an area where the national context shows virtually no risk (Z-score: -0.809). This suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be more dependent on external collaborations than is typical for the country. While partnering is essential, a gap where global impact is significantly higher than the impact of institution-led research can signal a sustainability risk. This finding invites strategic reflection on whether the university's excellence metrics are a result of its own structural capacity or its positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The university exhibits a pattern of preventive isolation from national risk dynamics, with a very low-risk Z-score of -1.183 in stark contrast to the country's medium-risk average (0.425). This demonstrates an institutional environment that does not replicate the pressures for extreme publication volumes seen elsewhere. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme volumes often challenge the capacity for meaningful contribution. The university's excellent score indicates it effectively mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over sheer metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a near-complete absence of reliance on its own journals, a practice that aligns well with the low-risk national standard (-0.010). This demonstrates a strong commitment to independent, external peer review. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. By avoiding this, the university ensures its scientific production undergoes standard competitive validation, which enhances its global visibility and credibility, and prevents the use of internal channels as potential 'fast tracks' to inflate publication records.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution demonstrates total operational silence in this area, with a Z-score of -0.885 that indicates an absence of risk signals even below the very low national average (-0.515). This exemplary performance suggests a strong institutional culture that discourages data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' This practice, where a single study is divided into minimal publishable units to inflate productivity, distorts scientific evidence. The university's result points to a clear focus on publishing coherent, significant studies, thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific record and prioritizing new knowledge over volume.