| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.990 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.850 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.032 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.440 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.146 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.876 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.270 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.769 | -0.515 |
Jiangxi Science and Technology Normal University presents a complex profile of scientific integrity, with an overall score of 0.301 that reflects a combination of significant strengths and specific areas requiring strategic attention. The institution demonstrates exceptional control in key areas such as preventing hyper-authorship, ensuring the originality of its output (low redundant output), maintaining intellectual leadership in its publications, and avoiding academic endogamy through institutional journals. However, this is contrasted by medium-risk indicators in the rates of multiple affiliations, retracted publications, output in discontinued journals, and the presence of hyperprolific authors, suggesting vulnerabilities in author practices and publication channel selection. These integrity challenges coexist with notable academic strengths, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly in Environmental Science, Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, Chemistry, and Medicine. While the institution's specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, any commitment to research excellence and social responsibility is inherently challenged by risks that could undermine the credibility and quality of its scientific contributions. Practices that lead to retractions or publication in predatory journals contradict the fundamental principles of academic rigor. Therefore, a proactive strategy focused on reinforcing publication guidelines, enhancing author training on ethical affiliations, and implementing stricter due diligence for journal selection is recommended. This will allow the University to leverage its clear research strengths and build a more resilient and unimpeachable scientific reputation.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 0.990, which points to a greater sensitivity to this risk factor when compared to the national average of -0.062. This moderate deviation from the national norm suggests that the university's affiliation patterns are more pronounced than those of its 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 or “affiliation shopping.” This value warrants a review of institutional policies to ensure that all declared affiliations correspond to substantive and transparent collaborations.
With a Z-score of 0.850, the university shows a higher rate of retracted publications than the national standard, which stands at -0.050. This discrepancy indicates an institutional vulnerability that is not shared by the broader national context. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the average alerts to a potential weakness in the institution's integrity culture. This Z-score suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing more frequently than expected, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management.
The institution demonstrates effective control in this area, with a Z-score of -0.032, which contrasts favorably with the national average of 0.045. This performance indicates institutional resilience, as the university appears to successfully mitigate systemic risks that are more prevalent at the country level. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university's low score suggests it avoids the creation of scientific 'echo chambers.' This ensures its academic influence is validated by the global community rather than being oversized by internal dynamics or endogamous impact inflation.
The university's Z-score of 0.440 is significantly higher than the national average of -0.024, indicating a greater tendency to publish in journals that have been discontinued. This moderate deviation suggests a potential gap in the due diligence process for selecting dissemination channels. A high Z-score in this area constitutes a critical alert, as it indicates that a portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. This exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need for enhanced information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution maintains a very low-risk profile in this area, with a Z-score of -1.146 that is even stronger than the low-risk national standard of -0.721. This absence of risk signals demonstrates a consistent and responsible approach to authorship. This performance indicates that the university effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration, common in 'Big Science,' and questionable practices like 'honorary' authorship. By doing so, it upholds transparency and ensures individual accountability is not diluted in its publications.
With a Z-score of -0.876, the institution shows a complete absence of risk signals, performing even better than the excellent national average of -0.809. This result indicates a healthy and sustainable research ecosystem where the impact of work led by the institution is robust and not reliant on external partners. This demonstrates strong internal capacity and genuine intellectual leadership, successfully avoiding the sustainability risk that arises when scientific prestige is dependent and exogenous rather than structurally embedded within the institution.
While this indicator signals a medium risk for both the institution (Z-score: 0.270) and the country (Z-score: 0.425), the university demonstrates more effective management of this issue. Its lower score suggests it is successfully moderating a risk that appears to be a common trend at the national level. Nonetheless, the presence of hyperprolific authors still alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality. It is crucial to ensure that extreme publication volumes do not mask risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution exhibits a very low-risk profile with a Z-score of -0.268, surpassing the already low-risk national standard of -0.010. This strong performance reflects a commitment to external validation and global visibility. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the university effectively mitigates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This ensures its scientific production bypasses internal 'fast tracks' and is instead subjected to independent, competitive peer review, reinforcing its credibility.
In this area, the institution demonstrates an exemplary record, with a Z-score of -0.769 indicating a complete absence of risk signals, a performance that is even more pronounced than the strong national average of -0.515. This reflects a culture that prioritizes significant new knowledge over artificially inflated productivity metrics. This outstanding result shows the university effectively prevents the practice of 'salami slicing,' where a single study is fragmented into minimal publishable units, thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific evidence base and respecting the academic review system.
