| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.445 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.447 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.663 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.028 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.048 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.511 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.216 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.292 | -0.515 |
Jiaxing University presents a solid scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.258 indicating performance that is slightly better than the global baseline. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining a very low rate of retracted output, hyperprolific authors, and publications in its own journals, signaling robust internal quality controls and a culture that prioritizes research quality over sheer volume. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a medium-risk level for Multiple Affiliations and Output in Discontinued Journals, which suggest a need to review policies on author affiliation and guidance on selecting reputable publication venues. These findings are contextualized by the university's strong academic positioning, as evidenced by SCImago Institutions Rankings data, particularly in fields such as Environmental Science, Business, Management and Accounting, Economics, Econometrics and Finance, and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology. While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, any pursuit of academic excellence and social responsibility is fundamentally linked to scientific integrity. The identified risks, though moderate, could undermine these core values if left unaddressed. Therefore, a proactive approach to refining institutional policies will be crucial to consolidate its strong foundation and ensure its research impact is both sustainable and reputable.
The institution's Z-score of 1.445 indicates a moderate deviation from the national standard, which stands at -0.062. This suggests that the university shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors in this area compared to its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this elevated rate warrants a review. It could signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," a practice that can distort the perception of the university's collaborative footprint and research ownership. A closer examination of affiliation patterns is recommended to ensure they reflect genuine scientific collaboration.
With a Z-score of -0.447, the institution demonstrates an exemplary performance, well below the low-risk national average of -0.050. This absence of risk signals is consistent with a secure national environment and points to highly effective internal governance. A rate significantly lower than the global average suggests that the university's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are functioning optimally. This strong result indicates a robust integrity culture and a high degree of methodological rigor, effectively preventing the systemic failures that can lead to post-publication corrections and reputational damage.
The institution demonstrates notable resilience in this area, with a low-risk Z-score of -0.663, contrasting sharply with the country's medium-risk average of 0.045. This suggests that internal control mechanisms are successfully mitigating a systemic risk prevalent at the national level. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but by maintaining a low rate, the university avoids the creation of scientific 'echo chambers' and the risk of endogamous impact inflation. This ensures its academic influence is validated by the broader global community rather than being oversized by internal dynamics.
A moderate deviation is observed, with the institution's Z-score at 0.028 against a national average of -0.024. This indicates a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers and constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. A high proportion of publications in such journals suggests that a significant portion of scientific production may be channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and points to an urgent need for enhanced information literacy among researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution maintains a prudent profile with a Z-score of -1.048, which is notably lower than the national average of -0.721. This indicates that its authorship processes are managed with more rigor than the national standard. The low incidence of hyper-authorship suggests the institution effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration in "Big Science" and practices like 'honorary' or political authorship. This commitment to appropriate credit attribution helps maintain individual accountability and transparency in its research publications.
A slight divergence is noted, as the institution's Z-score of -0.511 indicates a low-risk signal in an area where the country as a whole shows very low risk (-0.809). This minimal gap suggests that the university's scientific prestige is largely structural and derived from its own intellectual leadership. The close alignment between its overall impact and the impact of its led research indicates a healthy balance and strong internal capacity, successfully avoiding the sustainability risks associated with being overly dependent on external partners for impact and prestige.
The institution demonstrates a state of preventive isolation, with a very low Z-score of -1.216 in stark contrast to the country's medium-risk average of 0.425. This shows that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics concerning hyperprolific authors that are present in its environment. The absence of extreme individual publication volumes, which often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution, points to a healthy balance between quantity and quality. This focus helps mitigate risks such as coercive authorship or 'salami slicing' and prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over inflated metrics.
The institution exhibits low-profile consistency, with a Z-score of -0.268 indicating a near-total absence of risk, which aligns with the low-risk national context (-0.010). This very low dependence on its own journals for publication is a sign of strong governance, as it avoids potential conflicts of interest where the institution would act as both judge and party. This practice demonstrates a commitment to independent external peer review, ensuring its scientific production achieves global visibility and undergoes standard competitive validation rather than using internal channels as potential 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts.
A slight divergence from the national trend is observed, with the institution's Z-score of -0.292, while low, representing a faint signal of risk in an area where the country shows virtually none (-0.515). This suggests that while the practice of 'salami slicing'—artificially inflating productivity by dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units—is not a significant issue, it is an area that warrants passive monitoring. Maintaining this low level is key to ensuring that the institutional focus remains on producing significant new knowledge rather than prioritizing publication volume, which can distort scientific evidence and overburden the peer review system.
