| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.274 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.155 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.817 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.337 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.900 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.724 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.401 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
2.534 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.498 | -0.515 |
China University of Geosciences demonstrates a robust and generally low-risk scientific profile, with an overall integrity score of 0.142. This performance is anchored by exceptional strengths in maintaining scientific independence, ensuring the quality of publication channels, and preventing research fragmentation. However, this solid foundation is contrasted by medium-risk vulnerabilities concentrated in authorship and citation practices, particularly concerning institutional self-citation, publication in in-house journals, and multiple affiliations. The institution's global standing, as evidenced by the SCImago Institutions Rankings, is world-leading in its core domains, ranking #2 globally in Earth and Planetary Sciences, #20 in Environmental Science, and #34 in Energy. This outstanding performance directly fulfills its mission to become a world-class university. Nevertheless, the identified risks of academic endogamy and potential impact inflation could challenge the external perception of this excellence. To safeguard its hard-won reputation, it is recommended that the university proactively strengthens its policies on authorship transparency and citation ethics, ensuring its operational integrity fully aligns with its top-tier scientific achievements.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 0.274, marking a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.062. This suggests the university displays a greater sensitivity to the risks associated with this practice compared to its national 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. This divergence from the national trend warrants a review to ensure that all affiliations are substantive and reflect genuine contributions, rather than "affiliation shopping" practices that could dilute the institution's brand.
With a Z-score of -0.155, the institution exhibits a prudent profile regarding retracted publications, performing with more rigor than the national standard (-0.050). This low value indicates that the university's pre-publication quality control mechanisms are functioning effectively. Retractions can sometimes signify responsible supervision through the correction of honest errors, and this institution's minimal rate suggests that such instances are rare and well-managed, reflecting a strong culture of methodological integrity and a low incidence of systemic failures.
The university shows a high exposure to risks in this area, with a Z-score of 1.817 that is significantly more pronounced than the national average of 0.045. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of established research lines. However, this disproportionately high rate can signal concerning scientific isolation or "echo chambers" where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This value warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than global community recognition, a critical factor for its international ambitions.
The institution demonstrates low-profile consistency in its selection of publication venues, with a Z-score of -0.337, indicating a near-total absence of risk signals that aligns with the low-risk national standard (-0.024). This excellent result shows that the university's researchers exercise strong due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It confirms that scientific production is not being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, thereby protecting the institution from reputational risks associated with "predatory" or low-quality practices.
The institution maintains a prudent profile in authorship practices, with a Z-score of -0.900, which is more rigorous than the national standard of -0.721. This low score indicates that the university effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and potential author list inflation. It suggests that instances of "honorary" or political authorship are not a systemic issue, and that the institution fosters a culture where individual accountability and transparency in contributions are well-maintained, even in large-scale research projects.
The university exhibits total operational silence in this area, with a Z-score of -1.724, indicating an absence of risk signals that is even more pronounced than the already strong national average of -0.809. This exceptional score signifies that the institution's scientific prestige is not dependent on external partners but is driven by its own structural capacity. It provides powerful evidence that the university's excellence metrics result from genuine internal capabilities and intellectual leadership, a key hallmark of a sustainable, world-class research institution.
The institution's Z-score of 0.401 for hyperprolific authors is closely aligned with the national average of 0.425, pointing to a systemic pattern. This risk level appears to reflect shared practices or norms at a national level rather than an issue unique to the university. Nonetheless, the presence of authors with extreme publication volumes warrants attention, as it can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator alerts to 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 scientific record integrity.
With a Z-score of 2.534, the university shows a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.010, indicating a greater sensitivity to the risks of publishing in its own journals. While in-house journals can be valuable for local dissemination, an excessive dependence on them raises potential conflicts of interest, as the institution acts as both judge and party. This high Z-score warns of the risk of academic endogamy, where production might bypass independent external peer review. This practice could limit global visibility and may suggest the use of internal channels as "fast tracks" to inflate CVs without standard competitive validation.
The institution demonstrates integrity synchrony with its national environment, showing a Z-score of -0.498 that is in total alignment with the country's very low-risk average of -0.515. This signifies an environment of maximum scientific security against data fragmentation. The near-absence of this indicator confirms that the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, also known as "salami slicing," is not a concern. This reflects a commitment to publishing significant new knowledge over sheer volume, reinforcing the quality and reliability of its research output.
