| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.717 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.005 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.438 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.584 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.199 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.036 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.286 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.171 | -0.515 |
Chongqing Three Gorges University demonstrates a developing research profile, reflected in an overall integrity score of 0.254. The institution exhibits notable strengths in maintaining responsible authorship practices, with very low risk signals in hyper-authored output and publications in institutional journals, alongside effective mitigation of hyperprolific authorship. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a moderate deviation from national norms in multiple affiliations, institutional self-citation, and publication in discontinued journals, as well as a significant alert regarding the rate of redundant output and a dependency on external collaborations for research impact. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's key thematic strengths are concentrated in Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Energy, Physics and Astronomy, and Earth and Planetary Sciences. While the institution's specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, the identified risks could challenge any mission centered on achieving genuine scientific excellence and sustainable research leadership. By leveraging its robust control over authorship integrity and proactively addressing the identified vulnerabilities in publication and citation strategies, Chongqing Three Gorges University is well-positioned to solidify its research foundation and enhance its global standing.
Chongqing Three Gorges University presents a Z-score of 1.717 in this indicator, a figure that shows a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.062. This suggests the institution is more sensitive than its national peers to practices involving multiple affiliations. Disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” This value warrants a review to ensure that all declared affiliations reflect substantive contributions and are aligned with the university's collaborative strategy, rather than being primarily a mechanism for metric enhancement.
The institution's Z-score for retracted output is -0.005, which indicates a level of statistical normality when compared to the national average of -0.050. This alignment suggests that the university's rate of research correction is as expected for its context and size. A high rate in this indicator can suggest systemic failures in pre-publication quality control, but the current low-risk value indicates that the institution's mechanisms for ensuring methodological rigor and preventing malpractice are functioning in line with national standards.
With a Z-score of 0.438, the university shows a higher exposure to institutional self-citation risk compared to the national average of 0.045. This suggests the institution is more prone than its peers to practices that could lead to scientific isolation. While some self-citation is natural, disproportionately high rates can create 'echo chambers' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This high exposure warns of a potential for endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by broader recognition from the global community.
The university's Z-score of 0.584 for publications in discontinued journals marks a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.024. This indicates a greater sensitivity to this risk factor compared to its peers. A high proportion of publications in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This score suggests that a portion of the university's scientific output is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, highlighting a need to reinforce information literacy and protect institutional resources from 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution demonstrates a very low risk profile with a Z-score of -1.199, which is consistent with and even more conservative than the national average of -0.721. This absence of risk signals indicates a healthy alignment with national standards regarding authorship. The data suggests that the university effectively avoids the risks of author list inflation, where individual accountability and transparency can be diluted. This result points to robust internal governance that distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship practices, reinforcing the integrity of its research contributions.
A monitoring alert is raised by the institution's Z-score of 0.036 in this indicator, an unusual risk level when compared to the national standard of -0.809. This wide positive gap—where overall impact is significantly higher than the impact of research led by the institution—signals a potential sustainability risk. It suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, not structural. This value invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from a positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The university shows a Z-score of -0.286 for hyperprolific authors, demonstrating institutional resilience when compared to the national average of 0.425. This indicates that the university's control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate systemic risks related to extreme publication volumes that are more prevalent at the national level. A high value in this area can point to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation. The institution's prudent profile suggests a healthy balance between quantity and quality, prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over sheer metrics.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution maintains a very low-risk profile for output in its own journals, a rate that aligns with the low-risk national standard (-0.010). This absence of risk signals is a positive indicator of the university's publication practices. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and bypass independent external peer review. The university's low score suggests it avoids academic endogamy and promotes the validation of its research through competitive, external channels, thereby enhancing its global visibility and credibility.
The institution's Z-score of 1.171 triggers a monitoring alert, as this represents an unusual risk level for the national standard, where the average is -0.515. This score indicates a significant presence of massive and recurring bibliographic overlap between publications, which is a key sign of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' This practice, aimed at artificially inflating productivity by dividing a single study into minimal publishable units, distorts the scientific evidence and overburdens the review system. A review of the causes is required to ensure that research contributions prioritize significant new knowledge over publication volume.
