| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.731 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.117 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.209 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.175 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.082 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.260 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.172 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.197 | -0.515 |
Shanxi Datong University presents a balanced profile in scientific integrity, with an overall risk score of -0.112 indicating performance generally aligned with expected standards but highlighting a clear duality in its practices. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths in areas of internal control, with very low risk signals for Institutional Self-Citation, Hyperprolific Authors, and Output in Institutional Journals. These results suggest robust mechanisms against academic endogamy and authorship inflation. However, this is contrasted by medium-risk alerts in Multiple Affiliations, Retracted Output, Discontinued Journals, and a significant gap between its total and led-research impact, pointing to vulnerabilities in affiliation strategies, pre-publication quality control, and a potential dependency on external collaborations for prestige. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas include Medicine, Environmental Science, and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics. The identified risks, particularly those related to publication quality and integrity, could undermine the pursuit of academic excellence and social responsibility inherent in any university's mission. To safeguard its reputation and the impact of its key research areas, it is recommended that the university undertakes a targeted review of its medium-risk indicators, strengthening its governance frameworks to ensure that its operational practices fully align with its scientific potential.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.731, which marks a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.062. This suggests the university is more sensitive to risk factors in this area than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the higher rate observed here warrants a closer look. It may signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping,” a practice that appears more pronounced at the university compared to the broader national context. A review of affiliation policies is recommended to ensure they promote genuine collaboration rather than metric inflation.
With a Z-score of 0.117, the university shows a higher incidence of retractions compared to the national average of -0.050. This moderate deviation suggests a greater sensitivity to factors leading to publication withdrawal than is typical for the country. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the average alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This Z-score suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing more frequently than at peer institutions, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management.
With a Z-score of -1.209, the university demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of institutional self-citation, positioning it favorably against the national average of 0.045, where this practice is more common. This result indicates a form of preventive isolation, where the institution successfully avoids the risk dynamics observed in its environment. By minimizing internal citation, the university effectively mitigates the risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers' or inflating its impact through endogamous practices, signaling a healthy integration with and validation by the global scientific community.
The institution's Z-score of 0.175 for publications in discontinued journals represents a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.024. This indicates a greater institutional sensitivity to this risk factor compared to its peers. A high proportion of output 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 production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to reputational risks and signaling a need to improve information literacy to avoid 'predatory' practices.
The university's Z-score for hyper-authored output is -1.082, which is lower than the national average of -0.721. This prudent profile suggests that the institution manages its authorship attribution processes with more rigor than the national standard. This indicator serves as a signal to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and 'honorary' authorship practices. The university's low score indicates a reduced risk of author list inflation, thereby promoting greater individual accountability and transparency in its scientific contributions.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 0.260 in this indicator, a significant contrast to the national average of -0.809. This value represents a monitoring alert, as it is an unusual risk level for the national standard and requires a review of its causes. A wide positive gap, where global impact is notably higher than the impact of research led by the institution, signals a sustainability risk. This score suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, stemming from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership rather than from its own structural capacity for high-impact research.
The university shows a Z-score of -1.172, a figure that reflects an almost complete absence of hyperprolific authors and stands in stark contrast to the national average of 0.425. This demonstrates a clear preventive isolation, as the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed at a national level. Extreme individual publication volumes can point to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation. The university's very low score indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, effectively mitigating these risks and prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over sheer metrics.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a very low rate of publication in its own journals, a figure that aligns with the low-risk national standard (Z-score of -0.010). This low-profile consistency demonstrates that the university avoids potential conflicts of interest where an institution acts as both judge and party. This practice mitigates the risk of academic endogamy and ensures that its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, thereby enhancing its global visibility and competitive validation rather than relying on internal 'fast tracks'.
The institution's Z-score for redundant output is -0.197, which, while in the low-risk category, signals a slight divergence from the national context, where the average is -0.515. This indicates the emergence of risk signals at the university that are not apparent in the rest of the country. This indicator alerts to the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, also known as 'salami slicing.' The university's score, though not high, suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants review to ensure research is communicated with substance and significance, prioritizing new knowledge over volume.
