Yangzhou University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Yangzhou University presents a robust and well-balanced scientific integrity profile, reflected in its overall risk score of -0.164. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining a low dependency on external collaborations for impact, avoiding questionable publication channels, and ensuring transparency in authorship. These solid foundations are complemented by world-class leadership in specific thematic areas, with SCImago Institutions Rankings placing the university in the global Top 10 for Veterinary sciences and the Top 50 for Agricultural and Biological Sciences. However, the analysis also identifies medium-risk vulnerabilities related to institutional self-citation, multiple affiliations, and hyperprolific authorship. These signals, while not critical, could subtly undermine the university's mission to "nurture talents of high caliber" and foster "international exchange" by creating perceptions of academic insularity or a focus on quantity over quality. To fully align its operational practices with its strategic vision of excellence and global cooperation, the university is encouraged to leverage its clear strengths in research governance to proactively address these areas of moderate risk, thereby safeguarding its long-term reputation and impact.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

With a Z-score of 0.253, the institution's rate of multiple affiliations shows a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.062. This indicates a greater sensitivity to this particular risk factor compared to its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, a disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping”. This divergence from the national trend suggests a need to review affiliation policies to ensure they reflect genuine collaborative contributions rather than metric-driven incentives.

Rate of Retracted Output

The institution demonstrates a prudent profile in managing its published record, with a Z-score of -0.137 that is notably lower than the national average of -0.050. This suggests that its quality control mechanisms are more rigorous than the national standard. Retractions are complex events, and a lower-than-average rate indicates that the university's pre-publication review and supervision processes are effective in preventing the kinds of unintentional errors or potential malpractice that lead to retractions, reflecting a culture of responsible scientific conduct.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university shows high exposure to risks associated with self-citation, with a Z-score of 0.627 that is significantly higher than the national average of 0.045. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of established research lines. However, this disproportionately high rate warns of potential scientific isolation or an 'echo chamber' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This practice risks an endogamous inflation of impact, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

With a Z-score of -0.264, well below the national average of -0.024, the institution exhibits a prudent profile in its choice of publication venues. This demonstrates a more rigorous due diligence process than the national standard. The very low rate of publication in journals that are later discontinued indicates that researchers are successfully avoiding channels that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This proactive selection protects the institution from severe reputational risks and prevents the misallocation of resources to 'predatory' or low-quality publishing practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution maintains a prudent profile regarding authorship, with a Z-score of -1.084 that is considerably lower than the national average of -0.721. This indicates that its processes are managed with more rigor than the national standard. The low score suggests that authorship lists are generally justified and not inflated by 'honorary' or political additions. This reflects a culture that values individual accountability and transparency, effectively distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration in 'Big Science' and practices that dilute responsibility.

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

The institution's Z-score of -1.107, compared to the national average of -0.809, signals a total operational silence in this risk area, performing even better than its low-risk national context. This excellent result indicates that the impact of research led by the institution's own authors is robust and not dependent on external partners for prestige. It confirms that the university's scientific excellence is a result of genuine internal capacity and structural intellectual leadership, ensuring its high impact is both sustainable and self-generated.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The university demonstrates differentiated management of author productivity, with a Z-score of 0.322 that is below the national average of 0.425. This indicates that the institution successfully moderates a risk that appears more common across the country. While high productivity can reflect leadership, extreme volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. By maintaining a lower rate, the university mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, showing a commitment to balancing quantity with quality and upholding the integrity of its scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a complete absence of risk signals related to publishing in its own journals, a profile that aligns with the low-risk national standard (Z-score of -0.010). This demonstrates a commendable avoidance of excessive dependence on in-house journals, thus preventing potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. By prioritizing external, independent peer review, the institution ensures its research undergoes standard competitive validation, which enhances its global visibility and credibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.461 indicates that the risk of redundant output is minimal; however, it is slightly higher than the national average of -0.515, which is almost completely inert. This constitutes a faint, residual noise in an otherwise secure environment. While the practice of fragmenting a coherent study into 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity is clearly not a systemic issue, this minor signal suggests that vigilance is warranted to ensure all publications contribute significant new knowledge and do not overburden the review system with repetitive content.