| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.233 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.625 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.751 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.065 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.940 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.214 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.272 | -0.515 |
Tianshui Normal University presents a profile of notable strengths in core research integrity, balanced by specific areas requiring strategic attention, reflected in an overall integrity score of -0.380. The institution demonstrates exceptional performance in maintaining very low rates of retracted output, hyperprolific authorship, and publication in its own journals, indicating robust internal quality controls and a culture that prioritizes responsible authorship. However, this is contrasted by medium-risk signals in the rates of multiple affiliations, redundant output, publication in discontinued journals, and a dependency on external collaborations for impact. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university has established recognized research capacity in several key areas, with its strongest national rankings in Earth and Planetary Sciences, Chemistry, and Agricultural and Biological Sciences. While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, the identified risks—particularly those related to publication strategy and impact dependency—could challenge the universal academic goals of achieving genuine scientific excellence and social responsibility. By strategically addressing these vulnerabilities, Tianshui Normal University can build upon its solid integrity foundation to fully leverage its disciplinary strengths and enhance its global scientific standing.
The institution's Z-score for the Rate of Multiple Affiliations is 0.233, which represents a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.062. This suggests 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, a disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The current level warrants a review to ensure that affiliation practices are driven by genuine scientific partnership rather than "affiliation shopping," thereby safeguarding the transparency of institutional contributions.
With a Z-score of -0.625, significantly below the national average of -0.050, the institution demonstrates an excellent record regarding the Rate of Retracted Output. This low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with the national standard, indicates robust pre-publication quality control mechanisms. A rate significantly lower than the average reinforces the perception of a strong integrity culture, suggesting that potential methodological or ethical issues are effectively prevented before they can lead to retractions, which can damage institutional reputation.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.751 for Institutional Self-Citation, a figure that indicates strong institutional resilience when compared to the national average of 0.045. This suggests that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks of academic endogamy observed elsewhere in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university's low rate demonstrates that its research is validated by the broader scientific community, avoiding the "echo chambers" that can arise from excessive self-reference and ensuring its academic influence is based on external recognition.
For the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, the institution's Z-score is 0.065, a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.024. This indicates a greater institutional sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. A high proportion of publications 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 may be channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing it to reputational risks and highlighting a need for improved information literacy to avoid predatory or low-quality practices.
The institution maintains a Z-score of -0.940 for Hyper-Authored Output, a prudent profile that is more rigorous than the national standard of -0.721. This low score indicates that the university's authorship practices are well-managed and transparent. While extensive author lists are legitimate in "Big Science," this indicator's low value outside those contexts suggests the institution effectively avoids author list inflation, thereby reinforcing individual accountability and distinguishing necessary collaboration from questionable "honorary" authorship practices.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.214 in the gap between its total impact and the impact of its self-led research, a figure that stands out as a monitoring alert against the national average of -0.809. This unusual risk level for the national context requires a review of its causes. A wide positive gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige may be highly dependent on external partners, signaling a potential sustainability risk. It invites reflection on whether high-impact metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise primary intellectual leadership, a crucial factor for long-term scientific autonomy.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution demonstrates a state of preventive isolation from the national trend (Z-score: 0.425) regarding hyperprolific authors. This exceptionally low score indicates that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and point to risks like coercive authorship or a focus on quantity over quality. The institution's very low rate in this area is a strong positive signal of a balanced and healthy research culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score for output in its own journals is -0.268, which is well below the national average of -0.010. This low-profile consistency demonstrates that the university's publication practices align with a national environment of low risk in this area. While in-house journals can be valuable, excessive dependence on them raises conflict-of-interest concerns. The institution's minimal reliance on these channels suggests its research consistently undergoes independent external peer review, which enhances its global visibility and validates its scientific contributions through standard competitive processes.
In the Rate of Redundant Output, the institution's Z-score of 0.272 constitutes a monitoring alert, as it is an unusual risk level when compared to the national average of -0.515. This suggests the need to review the causes behind this signal. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate data fragmentation or "salami slicing," a practice of dividing a study into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity. This value warns that such practices might be distorting the scientific evidence produced by the institution and overburdening the review system, prioritizing volume over significant new knowledge.
