| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.473 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.127 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.910 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.701 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.274 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.585 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -0.515 |
Jilin Institute of Chemical Technology presents a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.217. This performance indicates a solid foundation of responsible research practices, characterized by exceptional control in critical areas such as Institutional Self-Citation, Hyperprolific Authorship, and Redundant Output, where the institution significantly outperforms national benchmarks. However, this strong core is contrasted by medium-risk alerts in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and, most notably, the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, suggesting specific vulnerabilities that deviate from the national context. These operational aspects warrant strategic attention, especially as the institution demonstrates significant thematic strength in areas like Environmental Science, Energy, and Agricultural and Biological Sciences, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. To fully capitalize on this research excellence, it is crucial to align all integrity indicators with the highest standards. Addressing the identified risks, particularly in publication channel selection, will ensure that the institution's valuable scientific contributions are not compromised by reputational threats, thereby safeguarding its mission to generate impactful and socially responsible knowledge.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.473, which contrasts with the national average of -0.062. This moderate deviation indicates that the center 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, this heightened rate suggests a need for internal review. It is advisable to verify that these affiliations correspond to substantive collaborations and are not being used as a strategic tool to artificially inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” thereby ensuring that all declared contributions are transparent and justified.
With a Z-score of -0.127, the institution demonstrates a more prudent profile compared to the national average of -0.050. This suggests that the center manages its pre-publication processes with greater rigor than the national standard. The lower-than-average rate of retractions points towards effective quality control and supervision mechanisms. This is a positive signal of a healthy integrity culture, where potential errors are likely identified and corrected before they enter the scientific record, reinforcing the reliability of the institution's research output.
The institution's Z-score of -0.910 is exceptionally low, especially when compared to the country's medium-risk average of 0.045. This result demonstrates a clear preventive isolation, where the center actively avoids the risk dynamics observed in its environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this remarkably low rate indicates that the institution's work is validated by broad external scrutiny rather than internal 'echo chambers'. This strong outward-looking focus confirms that its academic influence is driven by recognition from the global scientific community, not by endogamous impact inflation.
The institution's Z-score of 0.701 marks a significant point of concern, deviating moderately from the low-risk national average of -0.024. This indicates a greater institutional sensitivity to publishing in questionable venues. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. This pattern suggests that a significant portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and indicating an urgent need to enhance information literacy to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution shows a Z-score of -1.274, which is even lower than the country's already low-risk score of -0.721. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals aligns with and reinforces the national standard. This very low rate indicates that authorship practices are well-managed and transparent, effectively avoiding the risk of author list inflation. It signals a culture where individual accountability is maintained, clearly distinguishing legitimate large-scale collaborations from questionable 'honorary' authorship.
With a Z-score of -0.585, the institution shows a slight divergence from the national context, where the risk is very low (Z-score: -0.809). This indicates the emergence of minor risk signals that are not as apparent in the rest of the country. A positive gap can suggest that the institution's overall impact is partially dependent on collaborations where it does not hold intellectual leadership. While the current level is low, this signal invites a strategic reflection on fostering internal capacity to ensure that its scientific prestige is structural and sustainable, rather than primarily reliant on exogenous partnerships.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is in stark contrast to the national average of 0.425, which falls into the medium-risk category. This demonstrates a successful preventive isolation, whereby the center does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. The near-total absence of hyperprolific authors indicates a strong institutional focus on the quality and substance of contributions over sheer volume. This protects the integrity of the scientific record by discouraging practices such as coercive authorship or assigning credit without meaningful participation, ensuring a healthy balance between productivity and rigor.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 reflects a very low risk, consistent with the low-risk national environment (Z-score: -0.010). This alignment shows an absence of risk signals that is in line with the national standard. By minimizing its reliance on in-house journals, the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice demonstrates a commitment to independent, external peer review, which enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research and ensures its work is validated through standard competitive channels.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.186, indicating a state of total operational silence on this risk indicator, performing significantly better than the already low-risk national average of -0.515. This exceptionally low rate of bibliographic overlap between publications signals a robust policy against data fragmentation. It confirms a strong institutional commitment to publishing complete, coherent studies rather than artificially inflating productivity through 'salami slicing,' thereby contributing significant new knowledge and respecting the integrity of the scientific review system.
