| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.039 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.146 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.130 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.244 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.818 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.553 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.893 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.955 | -0.515 |
Yunnan Agricultural University demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.372. This performance indicates a general alignment with best practices, with notable strengths in maintaining a low dependency on external collaborations for impact, controlling hyperprolific authorship, and avoiding academic endogamy through institutional journals. These strengths provide a solid foundation for the university's academic mission. The institution's prominent standing in key thematic areas, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings in Veterinary (ranked 77th in China), Mathematics (86th), and its core field of Agricultural and Biological Sciences (119th), underscores its significant research capacity. However, a high exposure to institutional self-citation presents a strategic vulnerability. This practice, if unmonitored, could create an 'echo chamber' that risks undermining the external validation and global recognition essential for fulfilling a mission of academic excellence and societal contribution. By addressing this specific area, the university can further solidify its reputation and ensure its impactful research achieves the broad, independent recognition it deserves.
The institution's Z-score of -0.039 is statistically normal and closely aligned with the national average of -0.062, indicating that its collaborative patterns are typical for its context and size. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. In this case, the university's rate does not suggest any anomalous activity and appears to reflect standard academic collaboration, consistent with prevailing national norms.
The university demonstrates a prudent profile in managing its published record, with a Z-score of -0.146, which is notably lower than the national average of -0.050. This suggests that the institution's quality control processes are more rigorous than the national standard. Retractions can be complex events, but a rate significantly lower than the average points to effective pre-publication supervision and a strong culture of methodological integrity, which helps prevent systemic errors or potential malpractice from entering the scientific literature.
With a Z-score of 0.130, the university shows a greater tendency toward institutional self-citation compared to the national average of 0.045, indicating a high exposure to this particular risk factor. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of established research lines. However, this elevated rate warrants attention as it can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This dynamic may lead to an endogamous inflation of impact, suggesting that the institution's academic influence could be perceived as being oversized by internal dynamics rather than by broader recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution exhibits a prudent profile in its selection of publication venues, with a Z-score of -0.244, which is significantly lower than the national figure of -0.024. This indicates that the university's researchers exercise more rigor than their national peers in avoiding journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This diligent approach to selecting dissemination channels effectively mitigates reputational risks and prevents the misallocation of research resources into 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The university manages authorship practices with more rigor than the national standard, as shown by its Z-score of -0.818 compared to the country's -0.721. This prudent profile indicates a lower-than-average incidence of publications with extensive author lists outside of 'Big Science' contexts where they are legitimate. This approach helps prevent the dilution of individual accountability and transparency, signaling a healthy resistance to practices like 'honorary' authorship and reinforcing a culture where credit is assigned based on meaningful contribution.
The university displays an exceptionally strong profile in scientific leadership, with a Z-score of -1.553, far below the already low national average of -0.809. This signals a total absence of risk related to impact dependency. It is common for institutions to rely on external partners for impact, but a wide gap can suggest that prestige is exogenous. Here, the opposite is true: the data indicates that the institution's scientific prestige is structurally sound and generated from internal capacity, demonstrating a high degree of scientific autonomy where excellence metrics are a direct result of its own intellectual leadership.
The university effectively isolates itself from national trends regarding hyperprolific authorship, with its Z-score of -0.893 standing in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.425. This preventive isolation suggests that the institution's internal governance does not replicate the risk dynamics observed elsewhere in the country. By maintaining a very low rate of authors with extreme publication volumes, the university avoids potential imbalances between quantity and quality and mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 for output in its own journals is very low, demonstrating low-profile consistency with a national environment that already shows minimal risk (Z-score -0.010). This absence of risk signals aligns with the national standard. By not relying excessively on in-house journals, the university avoids potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, ensuring that its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which is crucial for achieving global visibility and competitive validation.
The university shows a complete absence of risk signals related to redundant publications, with an exceptionally low Z-score of -0.955 that is even more favorable than the low-risk national average of -0.515. This indicates that the practice of 'salami slicing'—artificially inflating productivity by fragmenting a single study into multiple minimal publications—is virtually nonexistent. This commitment to publishing complete, significant studies rather than prioritizing volume protects the integrity of the scientific evidence base and reflects a culture that values substantial contributions to knowledge.
