| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.758 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.597 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.226 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.179 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.578 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.004 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.803 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.245 | -0.515 |
Yantai University presents a robust profile in scientific integrity, with an overall risk score of -0.450 that indicates performance significantly better than the global average. The institution's primary strength lies in its effective governance and control mechanisms, which successfully mitigate several systemic risks prevalent at the national level, particularly in areas like institutional self-citation and hyperprolific authorship. This demonstrates a strong internal culture of integrity. Analysis of SCImago Institutions Rankings data highlights the university's competitive positioning in several key disciplines, with national Top 150 rankings in Social Sciences, Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, and Computer Science. While this low-risk profile strongly supports any institutional mission centered on excellence and social responsibility, a notable alert regarding the gap between its overall research impact and the impact of its self-led projects requires strategic attention. This dependency on external collaboration could pose a long-term risk to its goal of building sustainable, independent research capacity. By leveraging its solid integrity foundation, the university is well-positioned to address this vulnerability and further solidify its role as a leader in ethical and impactful research.
With a Z-score of -0.758, well below the national average of -0.062, the institution demonstrates a prudent and rigorous approach to managing researcher affiliations. This performance suggests that the university's policies are more stringent than the national standard, effectively preventing the inflation of institutional credit through practices like "affiliation shopping." This controlled approach ensures that institutional credit is a clear and accurate reflection of its collaborative and internal research efforts, reinforcing transparency in its academic footprint.
The institution's Z-score of -0.597 for retracted publications is exceptionally low, aligning with the low-risk national environment (Z-score -0.050). This absence of significant risk signals indicates that the university's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are robust and effective. Such a low rate suggests a healthy integrity culture where methodological rigor is prioritized, minimizing the occurrence of errors or malpractice that could lead to retractions and safeguarding the institution's scientific reputation.
Yantai University shows remarkable institutional resilience, with a Z-score of -0.226 in a national context where this indicator is a medium-level risk (country Z-score 0.045). This demonstrates that the university's internal control mechanisms are successfully mitigating a systemic national trend. By maintaining a low rate of self-citation, the institution avoids the creation of scientific 'echo chambers' and ensures its work is validated by the broader global community, confirming that its academic influence is driven by external recognition rather than endogamous impact inflation.
The institution manages its publication strategy with more rigor than its national peers, posting a Z-score of -0.179 compared to the country average of -0.024. This prudent profile indicates a greater degree of due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. By actively avoiding journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, the university effectively minimizes reputational risks and ensures that its research output is channeled through credible and sustainable media, preventing the waste of resources on predatory or low-quality practices.
The university's Z-score for hyper-authored output is -0.578, which, while low, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.721. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants review. Although extensive author lists can be legitimate in 'Big Science' collaborations, this signal suggests a need to ensure that authorship practices across all disciplines are transparent and that author lists are not being inflated by 'honorary' or political additions, which can dilute individual accountability.
A significant monitoring alert is raised by the institution's Z-score of 0.004, a stark contrast to the very low-risk national average of -0.809. This unusual risk level for the national context indicates a wide positive gap where the university's global impact is substantially higher than the impact of research it leads itself. This signals a potential sustainability risk, suggesting that its scientific prestige may be overly dependent and exogenous. It invites urgent reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The institution demonstrates strong institutional resilience with a Z-score of -0.803, effectively countering a national trend where hyperprolificity is a medium-level risk (country Z-score 0.425). This low rate indicates a healthy institutional culture that prioritizes quality over sheer quantity of publications. By discouraging extreme individual publication volumes, the university mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a very low reliance on its own journals, a practice consistent with the low-risk national standard (Z-score -0.010). This alignment demonstrates a strong commitment to independent, external peer review. By avoiding potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, 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 'fast tracks' to inflate publication metrics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.245 indicates a slight divergence from the national context, where this risk is almost non-existent (country Z-score -0.515). This signal, though at a low level, suggests the presence of research practices that do not appear in the rest of the country. It serves as a constructive alert regarding the potential for data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' where studies might be divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This warrants a review to ensure that the focus remains on publishing significant, coherent contributions to the scientific record.
