| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.785 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.587 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.177 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.657 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.079 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.771 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.490 | -0.515 |
Baoji University of Arts and Sciences presents a robust yet dualistic profile in scientific integrity, with an overall score of -0.233. The institution demonstrates exceptional governance in core research practices, exhibiting very low risk in areas such as Retracted Output, Institutional Self-Citation, Hyperprolific Authorship, and Redundant Output. These strengths are particularly noteworthy as they often run counter to national trends, indicating a strong internal culture of integrity. However, this solid foundation is contrasted by medium-risk indicators in Multiple Affiliations, publication in Discontinued Journals, and a significant dependency on collaborative impact. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's primary thematic strengths lie in Energy, Environmental Science, Computer Science, and Chemistry. While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, the identified risks—particularly those related to publication strategy and impact dependency—could challenge any commitment to achieving sustainable, self-led scientific excellence. Ensuring that prestige is built on genuine internal capacity is fundamental to any mission centered on social responsibility and long-term leadership. By proactively addressing these specific vulnerabilities while leveraging its clear strengths, Baoji University of Arts and Sciences is well-positioned to enhance its research ecosystem and solidify its reputation for high-quality, integral science.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 0.785, while the national average is -0.062. This result indicates a moderate deviation from the national context, suggesting the university shows a greater sensitivity to this particular risk factor than its 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.” This value warrants a review to ensure that all affiliations are substantive and reflect genuine collaboration, thereby safeguarding the institution's academic reputation.
With a Z-score of -0.587 compared to the country's -0.050, the institution demonstrates a very low rate of retracted publications. This excellent result reflects a low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals is even more pronounced than the already low national standard. This suggests that the quality control and supervision mechanisms in place prior to publication are effective and robust. Such a low rate is a strong indicator of a healthy integrity culture and high methodological rigor, reinforcing the reliability of the institution's scientific output.
The institution shows a Z-score of -1.177, in stark contrast to the national average of 0.045. This outstanding performance is a clear case of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed more broadly in its environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's very low rate signals a strong connection to the global scientific community, avoiding the 'echo chambers' that can lead to endogamous impact inflation. This practice confirms that the institution's academic influence is validated by external scrutiny rather than internal dynamics.
The university's Z-score for publishing in discontinued journals is 0.657, which represents a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.024. This suggests the institution is more exposed to this risk than its national counterparts. A high proportion of publications in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score indicates that a portion of its scientific production may be channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to reputational risks and suggesting a need to enhance information literacy among its researchers.
With a Z-score of -1.079, which is lower than the national average of -0.721, the institution displays a prudent profile in managing hyper-authorship. This indicates that its processes are managed with more rigor than the national standard. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' fields, this controlled rate suggests the institution is effectively mitigating the risk of author list inflation and the dilution of individual accountability. This reflects a commendable focus on transparency and meaningful contribution in authorship practices.
The analysis of impact dependency reveals a Z-score of 0.771 for the institution, a figure that constitutes a monitoring alert as it is highly unusual compared to the national average of -0.809. This wide positive gap—where overall impact is significantly higher than the impact of research led by the institution—signals a potential sustainability risk. It suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, not structural. This finding invites strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from real internal capacity or from positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise intellectual leadership.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, particularly when compared to the national average of 0.425. This demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, where the university actively avoids the risk dynamics present in its national environment. By maintaining a very low rate of hyperprolific authors, the institution effectively mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation. This result points to a healthy balance between quantity and quality, prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of productivity metrics.
With a Z-score of -0.268, well below the national average of -0.010, the institution shows a very low reliance on its own journals for publication. This low-profile consistency aligns with a secure national environment and demonstrates strong governance. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the university mitigates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, thereby enhancing its global visibility and competitive validation.
The institution's Z-score for redundant output is -0.490, which is statistically equivalent to the national average of -0.515. This result signifies integrity synchrony, reflecting a total alignment with a national environment of maximum scientific security in this area. The very low rate indicates that the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, known as 'salami slicing,' is not a concern. This reinforces the institution's commitment to producing significant new knowledge rather than prioritizing publication volume.
