| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.371 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.259 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.876 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.036 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.284 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.008 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.079 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.620 | -0.515 |
Chongqing Technology and Business University presents a balanced scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.107. This reflects a commendable internal research culture characterized by significant strengths, particularly in areas of authorship and citation practices. The institution demonstrates very low risk in Institutional Self-Citation, Hyper-Authored Output, Hyperprolific Authors, Output in Institutional Journals, and Redundant Output, indicating robust internal governance. However, this is contrasted by medium-risk signals in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, and a notable Gap between its total research impact and the impact of work under its direct leadership. These vulnerabilities require strategic attention. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's thematic strengths are most prominent in Business, Management and Accounting (ranked 128th nationally), Arts and Humanities (142nd), Psychology (143rd), and Energy (151st). While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, the identified risks—particularly those related to reliance on external leadership for impact and selection of publication venues—could challenge the universal academic goals of achieving sustainable excellence and demonstrating social responsibility through high-quality, ethically disseminated research. By leveraging its strong internal integrity framework, the university is well-positioned to address these external-facing challenges and further solidify its scientific reputation.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 0.371, while the national average is -0.062. This moderate deviation from the national standard suggests the university shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors than its peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the higher rate here warrants a closer look. It may signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," a practice that could dilute the university's distinct research identity and misrepresent its core contributions.
With a Z-score of -0.259, which is lower than the national average of -0.050, the institution demonstrates a prudent profile in managing post-publication corrections. This performance indicates that its quality control and supervision mechanisms are likely more rigorous than the national standard. The low rate of retractions suggests that when errors occur, they are handled responsibly, reflecting a healthy and accountable scientific environment rather than a systemic failure in pre-publication oversight.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.876, a figure that stands in stark positive contrast to the national average of 0.045. This represents a case of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's very low rate indicates it successfully avoids the creation of scientific "echo chambers." This suggests that its academic influence is validated by the broader global community, not inflated by endogamous internal dynamics, which is a sign of strong external engagement and recognition.
The university's Z-score of 1.036 marks a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.024. This figure constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. A high proportion of publications in such journals indicates that a significant 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 to enhance information literacy among its researchers to avoid wasting resources on "predatory" or low-quality practices.
The institution's Z-score of -1.284 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.721. This demonstrates low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with, and even improves upon, the national standard. This very low rate indicates that the university's authorship practices are transparent and accountable. It effectively distinguishes between necessary large-scale collaboration and "honorary" or political authorship, ensuring that credit is assigned appropriately and individual responsibility is maintained.
A Z-score of 0.008 for the institution presents a monitoring alert, as it is an unusual risk level when compared to the national standard of -0.809. This wide positive gap—where global impact is not matched by 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, stemming from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership. This invites reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from a reliance on external partners.
With a Z-score of -1.079, the institution effectively isolates itself from the medium-risk national trend, which stands at 0.425. This preventive isolation is a strong positive signal. While high productivity can reflect leadership, extreme volumes challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's very low score indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, successfully avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is well below the national average of -0.010, demonstrating low-profile consistency with an environment of good practice. In-house journals can present a conflict of interest, but the university's minimal reliance on them shows a strong commitment to independent, external peer review. This practice avoids the risk of academic endogamy and ensures its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels, enhancing its global visibility and credibility.
The institution's Z-score of -0.620 signifies total operational silence on this indicator, performing even better than the very low-risk national average of -0.515. This absence of risk signals indicates that the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, known as "salami slicing," is not a concern. It reflects a research culture that prioritizes the generation of significant new knowledge over the distortion of the scientific record for metric-based gains.
