| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.813 | 0.589 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.136 | 0.666 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.796 | 0.027 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.364 | 0.411 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.072 | -0.864 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.365 | 0.147 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.157 | -0.403 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.243 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.267 | -0.139 |
East West University presents a balanced scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.072 that aligns closely with the global average. The institution demonstrates significant strengths and robust governance in key areas, particularly its very low rates of Institutional Self-Citation and Output in Institutional Journals, indicating a strong commitment to external validation and global scientific dialogue. However, this solid foundation is contrasted by medium-level risk signals in the Rate of Retracted Output, Output in Discontinued Journals, the Gap in Impact from non-led research, and the Rate of Redundant Output. These vulnerabilities suggest a potential tension between research quality and productivity pressures. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's thematic strengths are most prominent in areas such as Economics, Econometrics and Finance, and Business, Management and Accounting. The identified risks, especially those related to publication quality and originality, could undermine the "academic excellence" and "high quality in... research" central to the university's mission. To fully realize its strategic vision, it is recommended that the institution leverage its clear strengths in academic openness to develop targeted policies that mitigate these specific vulnerabilities, ensuring that all research practices consistently reflect its core commitment to integrity and social responsibility.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.813, a value significantly lower than the national average of 0.589. This contrast suggests a high degree of institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate systemic risks that are more prevalent across the country. While the national context shows a moderate tendency towards practices that could inflate institutional credit, such as "affiliation shopping," the university's very low rate indicates that its policies effectively promote clear and legitimate affiliation practices, aligning with a culture of transparency and accountability.
With a Z-score of 0.136, the institution's rate of retractions is considerably lower than the national average of 0.666, although both fall within a medium-risk classification. This demonstrates a differentiated management of publication quality. The university appears to moderate the risk of retractions more effectively than its national peers, suggesting stronger pre-publication quality control. However, a medium-level score still serves as an alert. It suggests that while individual cases may represent honest corrections, there may be an underlying vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture or methodological rigor that requires qualitative verification by management to prevent systemic failures.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is -0.796, marking a stark and positive contrast with the national average of 0.027. This profile indicates a state of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, the national trend leans towards a moderate risk of creating 'echo chambers.' The university, however, demonstrates a strong outward-looking orientation, suggesting its academic influence is validated by the global community rather than being inflated by internal dynamics, thereby avoiding the risk of endogamous impact.
The institution's Z-score of 0.364 is nearly identical to the national average of 0.411, pointing to a systemic pattern. This alignment suggests that the medium-risk level is not an isolated institutional issue but rather reflects shared practices or challenges at a national level, possibly related to information literacy in selecting publication venues. This indicator is a critical alert regarding due diligence. The data indicates that a portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and highlighting an urgent need to reinforce training on avoiding 'predatory' practices.
Displaying a Z-score of -1.072, which is lower than the national average of -0.864, the institution maintains a prudent profile in authorship practices. This indicates that the university manages its processes with more rigor than the national standard. The data suggests a well-calibrated approach to authorship, effectively distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration in "Big Science" contexts and potentially problematic practices like author list inflation or 'honorary' authorships, thereby reinforcing individual accountability and transparency in its research output.
The institution shows a Z-score of 0.365, which is notably higher than the national average of 0.147. This signals a high exposure to dependency risk. The wide positive gap suggests that the institution's overall scientific prestige may be significantly reliant on collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This situation poses a sustainability risk, inviting reflection on whether its high-impact metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in external projects. The university is more prone to this alert than its peers, indicating a need to foster and promote research where its own scholars take the lead.
With a Z-score of -0.157, the institution's rate is higher than the national average of -0.403, although both remain in the low-risk category. This score points to an incipient vulnerability. While not yet a significant issue, the university shows early signals of hyperprolific activity that are more pronounced than in the broader national context and warrant review before escalating. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution, and this indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality that could mask risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is in close alignment with the national average of -0.243, demonstrating integrity synchrony. This shared very-low-risk profile indicates a robust and healthy practice across the national system, with the university fully aligned with this environment of maximum scientific security. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the institution circumvents potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review and achieves genuine global visibility rather than relying on internal 'fast tracks'.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.267, a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.139, which is in the low-risk category. This discrepancy indicates that the university shows a greater sensitivity to this particular risk factor than its national peers. A high value in this indicator alerts to the potential practice of 'salami slicing,' where a coherent study is fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This practice not only distorts the scientific evidence but also overburdens the peer-review system, prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
