Jinggangshan University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Jinggangshan University presents a balanced integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.038 that indicates general alignment with expected scientific conduct, yet reveals specific areas requiring strategic attention. The institution demonstrates notable strengths in maintaining a very low rate of retracted output and output in its own journals, and effectively mitigates national tendencies towards institutional self-citation and hyperprolific authorship. These successes point to robust internal quality controls. However, this is contrasted by medium-risk indicators in the rates of multiple affiliations, redundant output (salami slicing), and publication in discontinued journals, which deviate from national norms and signal potential vulnerabilities. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's key thematic strengths within China are concentrated in Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, Environmental Science, and Medicine. While the institution's specific mission was not provided for this analysis, the identified risks—particularly those related to publication strategies and author contribution—could undermine universal academic goals of excellence and social responsibility. By addressing these specific vulnerabilities, Jinggangshan University can better safeguard its reputation and ensure its research practices fully support its areas of scientific strength, thereby reinforcing a culture of unimpeachable integrity.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution exhibits a Z-score of 1.919, a value that moderately deviates from the national average of -0.062. This suggests the university shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors in this area than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the significantly higher rate at the institution could signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping." This divergence from the national standard warrants a review to ensure that all affiliations are transparent, justified by substantive collaboration, and do not artificially inflate the university's perceived contribution to research.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.475, the institution demonstrates an extremely low incidence of retracted publications, a figure that aligns with and even improves upon the low-risk national standard (-0.050). This low-profile consistency suggests that the university's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are functioning effectively. Retractions are complex events, but such a minimal rate indicates a strong culture of integrity and methodological rigor, successfully preventing the types of errors or malpractice that might otherwise lead to systemic vulnerabilities and subsequent retractions.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution shows a Z-score of -0.449, reflecting a low level of self-citation that contrasts favorably with the medium-risk national average of 0.045. This demonstrates institutional resilience, as internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate a systemic risk observed across the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but by maintaining a low rate, the university avoids the 'echo chambers' that can lead to endogamous impact inflation. This indicates that the institution's academic influence is validated by the broader global community rather than being oversized by internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 0.283 represents a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.024, indicating a greater institutional sensitivity to this risk compared to its peers. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This 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 the institution to reputational risks and signaling an urgent need for enhanced information literacy to avoid predatory or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.473, the institution's rate of hyper-authored output is slightly higher than the national average of -0.721, though both fall within a low-risk context. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability, suggesting the university shows early signals that warrant review before they escalate. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, this indicator serves as a signal to ensure that authorship practices across all disciplines are transparent and accountable, distinguishing necessary massive collaboration from any potential 'honorary' authorship that could dilute individual responsibility.

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

The institution presents a Z-score of -0.517, which, while low, marks a slight divergence from the very low-risk national benchmark of -0.809. This indicates the presence of minor risk signals related to impact dependency that are not as prevalent across the country. A positive gap can suggest that scientific prestige is dependent on external partners rather than being structurally generated from within. This finding invites reflection on whether the institution's excellence metrics result from its own intellectual leadership or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it plays a supporting role, highlighting an opportunity to strengthen internal research capacity.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -0.770 is exceptionally low, showcasing strong institutional resilience against a risk that is more pronounced at the national level (Z-score of 0.425). This indicates that the university's control mechanisms effectively prevent the emergence of extreme individual publication volumes. By managing this, the institution mitigates the risks of imbalances between quantity and quality, such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation. This responsible oversight ensures that productivity metrics do not compromise the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution maintains a very low rate of publication in its own journals, a practice consistent with the low-risk national environment (-0.010). This absence of risk signals demonstrates a strong commitment to independent external peer review. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the university circumvents potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This approach enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, ensuring its work is validated through standard competitive channels rather than internal 'fast tracks'.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of 0.625 for redundant output constitutes a monitoring alert, as this medium-risk level is highly unusual when compared to the very low-risk national standard of -0.515. This significant discrepancy requires a careful review of its causes. A high value in this indicator warns of the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, also known as 'salami slicing.' This practice, atypical in the national context, can distort the available scientific evidence and suggests an urgent need to reinforce publication ethics that prioritize significant new knowledge over volume.