| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
2.357 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.559 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.792 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.175 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.095 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.554 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.564 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.585 | -0.515 |
Hangzhou City University presents a balanced scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score near the neutral baseline (-0.132). The institution demonstrates significant strengths in core areas of research ethics, exhibiting very low risk in Retracted Output, Institutional Self-Citation, and Redundant Output. This foundation of integrity is a key asset. However, moderate risk signals in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and Output in Discontinued Journals require strategic attention to prevent potential reputational damage. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's thematic strengths are most prominent in Arts and Humanities, Business, Management and Accounting, and Psychology. The identified risks, particularly publishing in questionable journals, could undermine the institutional mission to cultivate "pioneering talents" and achieve "internationalized education," as these goals depend on a reputation for quality and ethical rigor. By leveraging its solid integrity framework to address these specific vulnerabilities, the university can better align its operational practices with its strategic vision, ensuring its contributions to economic and social development are both impactful and unimpeachable.
The institution's Z-score of 2.357 for multiple affiliations indicates a moderate deviation from the national norm (-0.062), suggesting a greater sensitivity to this risk factor compared to its peers in China. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this elevated rate warrants a review. It serves as a signal for potential strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," which, if unmanaged, could misrepresent the institution's collaborative footprint and dilute its brand identity.
The institution demonstrates a very low rate of retracted publications, with a Z-score of -0.559, which is even more favorable than the national average of -0.050. This low-profile consistency indicates that the absence of significant risk signals in this area aligns with the national standard. Retractions can be complex, but this very low rate suggests that the institution's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are functioning effectively, reflecting a culture of integrity and responsible supervision in maintaining the scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.792, the institution shows a very low rate of self-citation, contrasting sharply with the medium-risk national average (0.045). This represents a form of preventive isolation, where the institution successfully avoids the risk dynamics observed elsewhere in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this strong performance indicates that the institution's work is validated by the broader scientific community, steering clear of 'echo chambers' and ensuring its academic influence is based on global recognition rather than endogamous internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of 0.175 for publications in discontinued journals marks a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average (-0.024). This suggests the institution is more sensitive than its peers to the risk of publishing in questionable venues. This constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. A high proportion of output in such journals indicates that a significant portion of scientific production may be channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for information literacy to avoid predatory practices.
The institution maintains a Z-score of -1.095 for hyper-authored output, which is notably lower than the national average of -0.721. This prudent profile suggests that the institution manages its authorship processes with more rigor than the national standard. The data indicates a healthy distinction between necessary large-scale collaboration and potential author list inflation, reinforcing a culture where individual accountability and transparency in authorship are valued.
The institution's Z-score of -0.554 reveals a slight divergence from the national context, where the country average is -0.809. This indicates the presence of minor risk signals that are not as apparent in the rest of the country. While the gap is still low, this value suggests that the institution's scientific prestige may be somewhat more dependent on external collaborations where it does not hold intellectual leadership. This invites a strategic reflection on building internal capacity to ensure that excellence metrics are a direct result of its own structural strengths and not primarily dependent on exogenous factors.
The institution exhibits a low rate of hyperprolific authorship (Z-score: -0.564), which stands in positive contrast to the medium-risk national average (0.425). This demonstrates strong institutional resilience, as internal control mechanisms appear to be successfully mitigating systemic risks present at the national level. By maintaining low levels of extreme individual publication volumes, the institution effectively balances productivity with quality, avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without meaningful intellectual contribution, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution's rate of publication in its own journals is very low, performing better than the national average of -0.010. This low-profile consistency shows an absence of risk signals that aligns with the national standard for academic practice. This indicates that the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review and seeks global visibility rather than relying on internal channels that might be used as 'fast tracks' for publication.
The institution's Z-score for redundant output is -0.585, indicating a near-total absence of this risk behavior, even when compared to the already very low national average of -0.515. This represents a state of total operational silence on this indicator. The data strongly suggests that the institution promotes the publication of coherent, significant studies over the artificial inflation of productivity through data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific record and respecting the academic review system.
