| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
2.211 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.625 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.083 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.524 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.165 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.510 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.647 | -0.515 |
Hanshan Normal University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.200, which indicates a performance well within the parameters of responsible research conduct. The institution demonstrates exceptional strength in a majority of the evaluated areas, with very low risk signals in critical indicators such as Retracted Output, Institutional Self-Citation, Hyper-Authored Output, and Hyperprolific Authors. This solid foundation is, however, contrasted by two areas that require strategic attention: a medium-risk level in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's key thematic strengths lie in Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Energy, and Engineering. While the institution's mission was not specified, any commitment to "excellence" and "social responsibility" is directly supported by its strong overall integrity profile. Nevertheless, the identified risks, particularly in publication channel selection, could undermine this commitment by associating the institution's output with questionable practices. A proactive strategy focused on enhancing author guidance on affiliation policies and due diligence in journal selection would not only mitigate these specific risks but also solidify the university's position as a benchmark for scientific integrity.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 2.211 in this indicator, a significant contrast to the national average of -0.062. This score represents a moderate deviation from the national norm, suggesting the university is more exposed to the risks associated with affiliation practices than its domestic peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of collaboration, a disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. This divergence from the low-risk national standard warrants a review of internal policies to ensure that affiliations genuinely reflect substantive collaboration and are not used for "affiliation shopping," thereby safeguarding the transparency and merit of institutional achievements.
With a Z-score of -0.625, well below the national average of -0.050, the institution demonstrates an exemplary record in this area. This low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with the national standard, points to highly effective quality control mechanisms. Retractions can be complex, but a rate this low strongly suggests that responsible supervision and methodological rigor are embedded in the institution's research culture, preventing the systemic failures that a higher rate might indicate and reinforcing its commitment to producing reliable science.
The institution's Z-score of -1.083 stands in stark contrast to the national average of 0.045, which indicates a medium-risk environment. This demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, where the university successfully avoids the risk dynamics prevalent in its national context. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this exceptionally low rate confirms that the institution's work is validated by the broader external scientific community, not by internal 'echo chambers.' This practice protects the university from the risk of endogamous impact inflation and ensures its academic influence is based on genuine global recognition.
The university's Z-score of 0.524 marks a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.024. This indicates that the institution shows a greater sensitivity than its peers to the risk of publishing in questionable venues. A high proportion of output in journals that cease publication is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This score suggests that a segment of the university's research is being placed in media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, creating significant reputational risk and highlighting an urgent need to improve information literacy to prevent the use of 'predatory' outlets.
With a Z-score of -1.165, compared to a national average of -0.721, the institution maintains a very low-risk profile that is consistent with the national standard. The complete absence of risk signals in this area indicates healthy and transparent authorship practices. This suggests that, within the institution, author lists are not subject to inflation and that credit is assigned based on meaningful contributions, effectively avoiding the dilution of individual accountability and distinguishing its collaborative work from questionable 'honorary' authorship practices.
The institution's Z-score of -0.510 shows a slight divergence from the national average of -0.809. This indicates that while the national context shows virtually no gap, the university presents minor signals of risk activity in this area. A wide positive gap can signal a sustainability risk where prestige is dependent on external partners. Although the current risk level is low, this value invites a proactive reflection on strengthening internal research capacity to ensure that the institution's scientific excellence is primarily driven by its own intellectual leadership, securing its long-term academic autonomy and impact.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is a clear outlier when compared to the medium-risk national average of 0.425. This demonstrates a remarkable case of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the high-risk dynamics observed across the country. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This very low score is a strong positive signal that the institution fosters a culture that prioritizes quality and scientific integrity over sheer publication volume, effectively mitigating risks such as coercive authorship or data fragmentation.
With a Z-score of -0.268, compared to the national average of -0.010, the institution demonstrates low-profile consistency. This alignment with the low-risk national standard shows a clear commitment to external validation for its research. Over-reliance on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. By avoiding this practice, the university ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which enhances its global visibility and credibility and prevents the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication.
The institution's Z-score of -0.647 is even lower than the already very low national average of -0.515, indicating a state of total operational silence for this risk. This performance, which surpasses the national standard, shows an exemplary commitment to publishing complete and significant research. A high rate of bibliographic overlap often indicates 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a study to inflate productivity. This institution's excellent score confirms its researchers prioritize generating significant new knowledge over artificially boosting publication counts, thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific record.
