| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
2.046 | 0.994 |
|
Retracted Output
|
1.939 | -0.149 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.841 | -0.588 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.382 | -0.053 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.240 | -0.732 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.761 | -1.058 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.564 | 1.302 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.769 | -0.614 |
The City University of Macau demonstrates a robust internal integrity framework, reflected in an overall score of 0.799, but faces significant challenges in its external scientific engagement. The institution exhibits commendable strengths with very low risk in Institutional Self-Citation, Hyper-Authored Output, Output in Institutional Journals, and Redundant Output, indicating a healthy culture of authorship and citation. However, these positives are offset by critical vulnerabilities, notably a significant rate of retracted output and medium-risk levels for multiple affiliations and publication in discontinued journals. These weaknesses directly challenge the University's mission to cultivate a "Global Vision" and nurture "advanced talent," as they compromise the international credibility and quality of its research. The institution's strong positioning in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly in areas like Business, Management and Accounting; Economics, Econometrics and Finance; and Social Sciences, provides a solid foundation of academic excellence. To fully align its practices with its strategic vision of serving Macao and integrating with the Greater Bay Area, it is recommended that the University leverage its internal cultural strengths to develop rigorous quality assurance mechanisms for its external-facing activities, including publication venue selection and collaboration management.
The institution presents a Z-score of 2.046, which is notably higher than the national average of 0.994. Although both the University and the country operate within a medium-risk context for this indicator, the institution shows a greater propensity for this activity. This high exposure suggests that the University is more prone to the associated risks than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of partnerships, such as those encouraged by the mission to integrate with the Greater Bay Area, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping,” a practice that requires careful monitoring to ensure all collaborations are substantive and transparent.
A severe discrepancy exists between the institution's performance and the national standard, with a Z-score of 1.939 (Significant) compared to the country's score of -0.149 (Low). This atypical level of risk activity is a critical alert that demands a deep integrity assessment. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the average suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This value points to a serious vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to protect its reputation and academic credibility.
The University demonstrates an exemplary profile with a Z-score of -0.841, indicating a very low risk that is even more favorable than the country's already low-risk score of -0.588. This absence of risk signals, surpassing the national standard, reflects a strong culture of external validation and integration within the global scientific community. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's low rate confirms that its academic influence is driven by broad community recognition rather than internal 'echo chambers,' aligning perfectly with its goal of achieving a "Global Vision."
The institution shows a moderate deviation from the national norm, with a Z-score of 1.382 (Medium) in contrast to the country's low-risk score of -0.053. This indicates a greater institutional sensitivity to risk factors associated with publication channels. A high proportion of output in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination media. This 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 severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for improved information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of -1.240, the institution maintains a very low-risk profile that is significantly better than the national low-risk average of -0.732. This positive result demonstrates an absence of risk signals related to authorship inflation, surpassing the already healthy national standard. This indicates that authorship practices at the University are transparent and accountable, effectively distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship, thereby safeguarding the integrity of its research contributions.
A slight divergence is observed, with the institution showing a low-risk Z-score of -0.761 while the national context is one of very low risk (-1.058). This suggests the emergence of a minor signal of risk activity at the University that is not apparent in the rest of the country. A negative score is positive, indicating that the impact of institution-led research is strong; however, the score being closer to zero than the country's average suggests a slightly greater reliance on external partners for high-impact work. This invites reflection on ensuring that its scientific prestige is built upon a sustainable foundation of internal capacity, rather than depending on collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The University demonstrates notable institutional resilience, with a low-risk Z-score of -0.564 in a national context of medium risk (1.302). This suggests that the institution's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks of hyperprolificity observed across the country. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The University's low score is a positive indicator of a healthy balance between quantity and quality, successfully avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thereby prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution is in perfect alignment with its national environment, sharing an identical Z-score of -0.268, which corresponds to a very low-risk level. This integrity synchrony reflects a shared commitment to external validation and global scientific dialogue. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the University ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which is essential for avoiding academic endogamy, enhancing global visibility, and ensuring that its research is validated through standard competitive processes rather than internal 'fast tracks'.
The institution exhibits total operational silence in this area, with a Z-score of -0.769 that indicates an absence of risk signals even below the very low national average of -0.614. This outstanding result points to a strong commitment to producing substantive and coherent research. By avoiding data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' the University demonstrates that its research prioritizes the generation of significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of productivity metrics, a practice that strengthens the scientific record and respects the academic review system.
