| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.666 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
9.687 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.822 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.314 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.223 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.856 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.630 | -0.515 |
Honghe University presents a complex scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of 2.940 indicating a need for strategic intervention. The institution demonstrates notable strengths in maintaining low rates of institutional self-citation, hyper-authorship, and hyperprolific authors, suggesting a culture that values external validation and responsible authorship. However, these strengths are offset by significant vulnerabilities, most critically an exceptionally high rate of retracted publications, alongside medium-risk signals in multiple affiliations, publication in discontinued journals, impact dependency, and redundant output. These risks could compromise the credibility of the university's key research areas, including its recognized contributions in Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Energy, Environmental Science, and Mathematics as per SCImago Institutions Rankings data. As the institutional mission was not localized, it is crucial to recognize that such integrity risks fundamentally contradict the universal academic values of excellence and social responsibility. A proactive strategy is recommended, focusing on reinforcing pre-publication quality controls and enhancing researcher training in publication ethics to ensure that its scientific output fully aligns with the highest standards of integrity.
The institution presents a Z-score of 1.666, which shows a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.062. This indicates that the university demonstrates 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 elevated rate at the institution warrants a review. It could signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping,” a practice that, if unmonitored, could dilute the perceived contribution of the university's core research staff.
With a Z-score of 9.687, the institution shows a critical level of risk that is in severe discrepancy with the low-risk national environment (Z-score: -0.050). This atypical activity requires a deep integrity assessment. Retractions are complex events, but a rate this significantly higher than the global average alerts to a critical vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. It suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to protect the institution's scientific reputation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.822 is in the very low-risk category, a positive result that demonstrates a form of preventive isolation from the medium-risk dynamics observed nationally (Z-score: 0.045). This excellent performance indicates that the university avoids the risk of endogamous impact inflation. By not relying on internal validation, the institution shows that its academic influence is robustly tested by the global scientific community, steering clear of the 'echo chambers' that can limit external scrutiny and credibility.
A Z-score of 0.314 places the institution in the medium-risk category, a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.024. This suggests the university is more sensitive than its peers to the risk of publishing in questionable venues. A high proportion of output in such journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score indicates that a portion of its scientific production may be channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to reputational risks and suggesting a need for enhanced information literacy to avoid 'predatory' practices.
The institution's Z-score of -1.223 signifies a very low risk, demonstrating a low-profile consistency that aligns well with the country's low-risk standard (Z-score: -0.721). This result confirms the absence of risk signals related to author list inflation. It suggests that authorship practices at the university are transparent and reflect genuine contributions, successfully distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and potentially problematic 'honorary' authorship, thereby upholding individual accountability.
The institution's Z-score of 0.856 is a monitoring alert, as this medium-risk level is unusual when compared to the very low-risk national standard of -0.809. This wide positive gap signals a potential sustainability risk, suggesting that the university's scientific prestige may be dependent on external collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This invites reflection on whether its high-impact metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in partnerships that do not yet reflect a structural and independent research excellence.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution shows a very low risk in this area, effectively isolating itself from the medium-risk trend observed at the national level (Z-score: 0.425). This strong result indicates a healthy institutional balance between publication quantity and quality. By avoiding extreme individual publication volumes, the university mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or authorship assigned without real participation, reinforcing a culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over purely metric-driven productivity.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is in the very low-risk range, a position of low-profile consistency that aligns with the national context (Z-score: -0.010). This indicates a strong commitment to seeking external validation for its research. By minimizing its dependence on in-house journals, the university effectively avoids potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production undergoes independent peer review and achieves greater global visibility rather than using internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication.
A Z-score of 0.630 represents a monitoring alert, as this medium-risk level is unusual for the national standard, where the risk is very low (Z-score: -0.515). This value alerts to the potential practice of dividing coherent studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, also known as 'salami slicing.' Such a practice can distort the available scientific evidence and overburden the peer review system, signaling a need to reinforce policies that prioritize the publication of significant new knowledge over sheer volume.
