| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.483 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
1.977 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.411 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.524 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.143 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.290 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.059 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.771 | -0.515 |
Shanghai University of Sport demonstrates a dual performance in its scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of 0.433 reflecting both significant strengths and critical areas for improvement. The institution exhibits an exceptionally strong foundation in authorship and publication ethics, showing very low risk in indicators such as Hyper-Authored Output, Hyperprolific Authors, Redundant Output, and Output in Institutional Journals. However, this robust core is contrasted by concerning vulnerabilities, particularly a medium risk in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and a significant, high-risk level in the Rate of Retracted Output. These weaknesses require strategic attention as they could undermine the institution's notable research strengths, evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings in key areas like Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, Psychology, and Computer Science. While a specific mission statement was not available, any pursuit of academic excellence and social responsibility is directly challenged by high rates of retractions, which erode trust and scientific credibility. To secure its reputation and align its integrity practices with its research ambitions, it is recommended that the university focuses on strengthening its pre-publication quality control mechanisms and clarifying its affiliation policies, thereby building upon its solid ethical base to create a uniformly resilient research environment.
The institution registers a Z-score of 0.483, a figure that shows a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.062. This suggests the center has a greater sensitivity to risk factors related to affiliation practices than its national peers. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, a disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” The university's tendency towards this practice, when compared to the lower national baseline, warrants a review of its policies to ensure that all affiliations are transparent, justified by substantive collaboration, and do not artificially inflate the institution's perceived contribution to research.
The institution presents a Z-score of 1.977, a value that indicates a severe discrepancy when compared to the national average of -0.050. This atypical level of risk activity is an urgent call for a deep integrity assessment. Retractions are complex events, but a Z-score this high suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This rate, significantly higher than the national standard, alerts to a critical 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 safeguard its scientific reputation.
With a Z-score of -0.411, the institution demonstrates a lower rate of self-citation compared to the national average of 0.045. This result points to strong institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate systemic risks that may be more prevalent at the national level. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but by maintaining a low rate, the university avoids the 'echo chambers' that can arise from excessive self-validation. This prudent approach suggests that the institution's academic influence is healthily reliant on global community recognition rather than being oversized by internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of 0.524 marks a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.024. This indicates that the center shows a greater sensitivity than its peers to the risk of publishing in questionable outlets. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score suggests 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 reputational risks and signaling a need to enhance information literacy among its researchers to avoid 'predatory' practices.
The institution shows a Z-score of -1.143, which is well below the national average of -0.721. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals in this area aligns with, and even improves upon, the national standard. This result indicates that the university successfully distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and practices of author list inflation. By avoiding hyper-authorship outside of 'Big Science' contexts, the institution promotes individual accountability and transparency in its research contributions.
With a Z-score of -1.290, significantly lower than the national average of -0.809, the institution shows a total operational silence regarding this risk. This excellent result indicates that there is no significant gap between the impact of its overall output and the output where it holds intellectual leadership. This suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and derived from its own internal capacity, rather than being dependent on external partners. It is a strong sign of sustainable, self-driven research excellence.
The institution's Z-score of -1.059 stands in stark contrast to the national average of 0.425. This demonstrates a commendable preventive isolation, where the center does not replicate the risk dynamics related to hyperprolificity observed in its environment. By maintaining a very low rate of authors with extreme publication volumes, the university reinforces a healthy balance between quantity and quality. This practice effectively mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or authorship assigned without real participation, prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over inflated metrics.
The institution records a Z-score of -0.268, a value lower than the national average of -0.010. This finding reflects a low-profile consistency, as the absence of risk signals aligns with the national standard. By not depending excessively on its own journals, the university avoids potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production is validated through independent external peer review, enhancing its global visibility and credibility rather than using internal channels as potential 'fast tracks' for publication.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is -0.771, which is below the already low national average of -0.515. This signifies a state of total operational silence, with an absence of risk signals even more pronounced than in the rest of the country. This result strongly suggests that the institution's researchers are not engaging in data fragmentation or 'salami slicing' to artificially inflate productivity. It reflects a commitment to publishing significant, coherent studies, thereby contributing meaningful new knowledge and respecting the scientific review system.
