Shanghai University of Electric Power

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Shanghai University of Electric Power presents a robust and well-managed scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.166 indicating performance that is solidly aligned with expected international standards. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths in several key areas, showing very low risk in Hyper-Authored Output, the impact gap in led research, output in institutional journals, and redundant publications. These results point to a culture of responsible collaboration and a focus on generating original, high-impact knowledge. The university's thematic excellence is clearly reflected in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, with prominent global positions in Energy (202nd), Environmental Science (360th), and Earth and Planetary Sciences (397th). However, a single area of concern emerges in the Rate of Hyperprolific Authors, which shows a medium risk level significantly above the national average. This particular vulnerability could potentially challenge the institution's commitment to research excellence and integrity, as it may suggest a focus on quantity over quality. To fully align its operational practices with its evident thematic leadership, it is recommended that the university reviews its authorship and productivity evaluation policies, ensuring that incentives promote substantive contributions over sheer volume, thereby safeguarding its long-term scientific reputation.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of -0.066 is nearly identical to the national average of -0.062, placing it in a position of statistical normality for its context. This alignment suggests that the university's patterns of collaboration and researcher affiliation are typical for its environment. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of partnerships, the institution's score indicates no unusual activity that would suggest strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping.” The risk level is low and consistent with national practices, reflecting a standard and appropriate approach to academic collaboration.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.137, the institution displays a more prudent profile regarding retracted publications compared to the national average of -0.050. This superior performance suggests that the university's quality control and supervision mechanisms are more rigorous than the national standard. Retractions can sometimes result from the honest correction of errors, but a low rate like this points towards effective pre-publication review processes that successfully prevent methodological flaws or potential malpractice from entering the scientific record, thereby protecting the institution's reputation for reliability and integrity.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution demonstrates notable resilience with a Z-score of -0.094, which contrasts favorably with the national average of 0.045, a value that falls into a medium-risk category. This indicates that while there may be a systemic tendency towards self-citation in the country, the university's internal control mechanisms effectively mitigate this risk. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. By maintaining this low level, the institution successfully avoids the disproportionately high rates that can signal scientific isolation or 'echo chambers,' ensuring its academic influence is validated by the global community rather than being inflated by internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The university manages its publication channels with greater rigor than the national standard, as shown by its Z-score of -0.294, which is significantly lower than the country average of -0.024. This prudent profile indicates a strong due diligence process in selecting dissemination venues. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals can be a critical alert for reputational risk, suggesting a failure to avoid 'predatory' or low-quality media. The institution's low score demonstrates a commitment to channeling its scientific production through reputable journals that meet international ethical and quality standards, thus safeguarding its resources and academic credibility.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.218, the institution shows a complete absence of risk signals related to hyper-authorship, a figure that is well below the already low national average of -0.721. This low-profile consistency reflects a responsible approach to authorship attribution that aligns with national standards. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' fields, their absence in other contexts here suggests that the university effectively prevents author list inflation. This fosters clear individual accountability and transparency, distinguishing its collaborative practices from potentially 'honorary' or political authorship.

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

The institution exhibits total operational silence in this indicator, with a Z-score of -1.270 that is even lower than the very low national average of -0.809. This exceptional result signifies a complete absence of risk and demonstrates a powerful alignment between the impact of its overall output and the research it directly leads. A wide positive gap can signal a sustainability risk where prestige is dependent on external partners. The university's score, however, proves that its scientific prestige is structural and derives from genuine internal capacity, reflecting a robust model where it exercises intellectual leadership in its collaborations.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of 1.232 is notably higher than the national average of 0.425, indicating a greater propensity for this risk factor compared to its peers, even though both operate within a context of medium alert. This suggests the institution is more exposed to practices that lead to extreme publication volumes. While high productivity can evidence leadership, extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of human capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator raises a flag about potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record and warrant a closer review of authorship policies.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a very low rate of publication in its own journals, a figure that is well below the national average of -0.010. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency and an absence of risk signals in this area, aligning with a healthy national standard. In-house journals can raise conflict-of-interest concerns, as the institution acts as both judge and party. The university's minimal reliance on these channels indicates a commitment to independent external peer review, which enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its research, and avoids any perception of academic endogamy or using internal journals as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.545 is almost perfectly aligned with the national average of -0.515, demonstrating integrity synchrony within an environment of maximum scientific security. This indicates a complete absence of signals related to data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' This practice, where a single study is divided into minimal publishable units to inflate productivity, distorts scientific evidence. The university's excellent score reflects a focus on publishing significant, coherent studies, prioritizing the generation of new knowledge over the artificial inflation of output volume.