Zhaoqing University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Zhaoqing University demonstrates a balanced scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.273. The institution exhibits significant strengths and robust internal controls in several key areas, particularly in maintaining very low rates of retracted output, institutional self-citation, hyper-authored publications, and hyperprolific authors. These results point to a solid foundation of research ethics and quality assurance. However, this performance is contrasted by medium-risk signals in the rates of multiple affiliations, publication in discontinued journals, and redundant output, which require strategic attention. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas nationally include Psychology (ranked 206th in China), Agricultural and Biological Sciences (261st), Earth and Planetary Sciences (313th), and Business, Management and Accounting (324th). While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, the identified risks, especially those related to publication channels and research fragmentation, could potentially undermine the core academic values of excellence and social responsibility. To safeguard and enhance its growing reputation in its areas of strength, it is recommended that the university undertakes a focused review of its policies on author affiliation and publication strategy to align them fully with its evident commitment to scientific integrity.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

Zhaoqing University presents a Z-score of 0.489, which is notably higher than the national average for China of -0.062. This result indicates a moderate deviation from the national trend, suggesting the institution is more exposed to risk factors in this area than its domestic 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.” Given the university's score, it would be prudent to review affiliation policies to ensure they promote genuine collaboration without creating incentives for practices that could artificially boost institutional metrics.

Rate of Retracted Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.484 is well below the national average of -0.050. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the absence of significant risk signals aligns with the national standard for post-publication quality control. Retractions are complex events, and some can result from the honest correction of errors, signifying responsible supervision. In this context, the university's very low rate suggests that its quality control mechanisms prior to publication are functioning effectively, preventing the systemic failures that can lead to a high volume of retractions and protecting its academic reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

With a Z-score of -1.479, the university operates far below the national average of 0.045, which shows a medium level of risk. This excellent result signals a state of preventive isolation, where the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics of scientific isolation observed elsewhere in its environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university's low rate indicates that its research is validated by the broader scientific community rather than relying on internal 'echo chambers'. This performance is a strong indicator of healthy external engagement and suggests that the institution's academic influence is built on global community recognition, not endogamous impact inflation.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The university's Z-score of 0.560 is significantly higher than the national average of -0.024. This score represents a moderate deviation, indicating that the institution shows a greater sensitivity to this particular risk factor than its national counterparts. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score indicates that a portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing it to reputational risks and suggesting a need to enhance information literacy among researchers to avoid predatory or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

Zhaoqing University's Z-score of -1.302 is substantially lower than China's national average of -0.721. This reflects a low-profile consistency, where the institution's practices align with a low-risk national standard regarding authorship. The absence of a high rate of hyper-authorship suggests that the university effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and practices like 'honorary' or political authorship. This indicates a culture where author lists are generally a transparent reflection of contribution, reinforcing individual accountability.

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

The institution shows a Z-score of -0.272, while the national average is -0.809. This represents a slight divergence, as the university displays low-level risk signals in an area where the national context is characterized by an almost complete absence of risk. A positive gap can signal a dependency on external partners for impact. Although the university's score is low, its position relative to the country suggests a minor tendency for its overall impact to be more reliant on collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This invites a gentle reflection on strategies to bolster the impact of its own internally-led research to ensure its scientific prestige is both structural and sustainable.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The university's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, especially when compared to the national average of 0.425, which falls into the medium risk category. This demonstrates a clear preventive isolation, where the institution avoids the risk dynamics related to extreme publication volumes that are present in the national system. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's very low score in this area is a positive sign that it fosters a research environment that prioritizes quality over quantity, mitigating risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the university scores well below the national average of -0.010. This result indicates a low-profile consistency, with the institution's practices aligning with the low-risk national standard. This performance suggests there is no excessive dependence on in-house journals, which can raise conflicts of interest. By avoiding this channel, the university mitigates the risk of academic endogamy and ensures its scientific production is validated through independent external peer review, thereby enhancing its global visibility and credibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of 0.642 stands in stark contrast to the national average of -0.515, creating a monitoring alert due to an unusually high risk level for the national context. This significant difference requires a review of its causes. A high value in this indicator alerts to the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, a practice known as 'salami slicing.' This behavior can distort the available scientific evidence and overburden the review system. The university should investigate the drivers of this pattern to ensure that its research output prioritizes significant new knowledge over sheer volume.