| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.906 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.051 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.080 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.146 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.207 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.951 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.919 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.500 | -0.515 |
Sichuan University of Science and Engineering presents a profile of notable contrasts, with an overall integrity score of -0.112 that reflects a clear division between areas of robust governance and emerging vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates exceptional strength and very low risk in practices related to authorship and publication strategy, including the Rate of Hyper-Authored Output, Gap in Leadership Impact, Rate of Hyperprolific Authors, Rate of Output in Institutional Journals, and Rate of Redundant Output. However, this solid foundation is counterbalanced by medium-risk indicators in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, Rate of Retracted Output, Rate of Institutional Self-Citation, and Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, which require strategic attention. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest research areas include Earth and Planetary Sciences, Environmental Science, Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, and Medicine. While a specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, any institutional commitment to research excellence and societal impact is inherently challenged by risks that could undermine the quality and reputation of its scientific output. To ensure its thematic strengths are built upon an unimpeachable foundation, the university is advised to leverage its robust governance in authorship to develop targeted policies and training that address the identified vulnerabilities in affiliation management and publication channel selection, thereby fostering a holistic culture of scientific integrity.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.906, a value that indicates a moderate deviation from the national standard, which registers a low-risk score of -0.062. This suggests the university shows a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution's higher rate signals a potential over-reliance on this practice. This divergence from the national norm warrants a review to ensure that affiliations are being used to reflect genuine collaboration rather than as a strategic attempt to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping.”
With a Z-score of 0.051, the institution shows a medium-level risk that moderately deviates from the country's low-risk average of -0.050. This discrepancy suggests that the university is more exposed to retractions than is typical for its national context. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the national standard alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing more frequently than elsewhere in the country, indicating a possible recurrence of malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management.
The institution's Z-score of 0.080 is closely aligned with the national average of 0.045, with both falling into the medium-risk category. This alignment indicates that the university's behavior reflects a systemic pattern of citation practices common at the national level. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this shared medium-risk level warns of a widespread tendency towards 'echo chambers' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. For the institution, this implies a risk of endogamous impact inflation, where its academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by broader recognition from the global scientific community.
The university's Z-score of 0.146 represents a moderate deviation from the national average, which stands at a low-risk score of -0.024. This indicates that the institution demonstrates a greater sensitivity to the risk of publishing in low-quality venues compared to its peers. A high proportion of publications in such journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This divergence suggests a specific institutional vulnerability, indicating that a significant portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical standards, exposing the university to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need for improved information literacy.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.207, reflecting a very low-risk profile that is consistent with the low-risk national standard of -0.721. This result demonstrates an absence of risk signals in authorship practices, aligning perfectly with the secure national environment. The university's excellent performance indicates that its author lists are appropriately managed, effectively distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration in "Big Science" and problematic practices like 'honorary' or political authorship. This strong governance ensures that individual accountability and transparency in research contributions are maintained.
With a Z-score of -0.951, the institution demonstrates a total absence of risk signals, performing even better than the country's already strong very low-risk average of -0.809. This exceptionally low score indicates that there is no meaningful gap between the impact of the university's total output and the impact of the research it leads directly. This result is a powerful indicator of scientific maturity and sustainability, suggesting that the institution's prestige is not dependent on external partners but is driven by genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership. Its excellence metrics appear to be the result of structural strength rather than strategic positioning in collaborations.
The institution maintains a Z-score of -0.919, a very low-risk value that signifies a preventive isolation from the risk dynamics observed at the national level, where the average is a medium-risk score of 0.425. This stark contrast highlights the university's effective internal governance, which prevents it from replicating a concerning national trend. While high productivity can be legitimate, the institution successfully avoids the risks associated with extreme publication volumes, such as coercive authorship or a compromised balance between quantity and quality. This demonstrates a strong institutional commitment to prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of metrics.
The university's Z-score of -0.268 places it in the very low-risk category, a finding consistent with the low-risk national environment (Z-score of -0.010). This alignment shows that the institution's practices are in step with the national standard, demonstrating a healthy and low-risk approach to internal publishing. 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 is validated through independent external peer review, thereby enhancing its global visibility and credibility.
The institution's Z-score of -0.500 is in almost perfect synchrony with the country's average of -0.515, with both indicating a very low-risk environment. This total alignment points to a shared culture of integrity where research is communicated holistically. This practice demonstrates a commitment, both at the institutional and national levels, to prioritizing the generation of significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of productivity metrics. The absence of signals for 'salami slicing' suggests that data is not being fragmented into minimal publishable units, which upholds the quality of scientific evidence and respects the academic review system.
