| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
2.124 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
2.859 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.345 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.572 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.445 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.749 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.585 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.015 | -0.515 |
Hainan Medical University demonstrates a solid overall performance with a score of 0.922, characterized by a profile of significant strengths in research integrity alongside critical, isolated vulnerabilities. The institution exhibits exceptional control over practices related to academic endogamy and research fragmentation, with very low risk signals in Institutional Self-Citation, Output in Institutional Journals, and Redundant Output. However, this robust internal governance is contrasted by a significant alert in the Rate of Retracted Output and medium-level risks in Multiple Affiliations and publication in Discontinued Journals, which require immediate strategic attention. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's key thematic strengths are concentrated in Veterinary, Engineering, Agricultural and Biological Sciences, and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics. While the institution's specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, the identified risks, particularly the high rate of retractions, directly challenge the universal academic goals of excellence and social responsibility. To safeguard its reputation and build upon its clear areas of scientific leadership, it is recommended that the university initiates a targeted review of its pre-publication quality control and affiliation management protocols, thereby aligning its operational practices with its evident research strengths.
The institution presents a Z-score of 2.124, while the national average is -0.062. This result indicates a moderate deviation from the national standard, suggesting the university is more sensitive to risk factors in this area than its peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution's significantly higher rate signals a need for review. This disparity suggests that internal policies or researcher practices may be encouraging strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping" at a level that is uncommon within the country, warranting a closer examination of its collaboration and affiliation guidelines.
The institution's Z-score for retracted publications is 2.859, a figure that represents a severe discrepancy when compared to the national average of -0.050. This atypical level of risk activity is an outlier within the national context and 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 strongly 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 its scientific reputation.
The institution demonstrates a commendable preventive isolation from national trends, with a Z-score of -1.345 against a country average of 0.045. This shows that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment regarding self-citation. A certain level of self-citation is natural to reflect the continuity of research lines; however, the institution's exceptionally low rate indicates a strong external focus and robust integration with the global scientific community. This result suggests that the institution's academic influence is built on broad external validation rather than internal 'echo chambers,' reinforcing the credibility of its impact.
With a Z-score of 0.572 compared to the national average of -0.024, the institution shows a moderate deviation and greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers. A sporadic presence in discontinued journals might be incidental, but this elevated proportion constitutes an alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. The Z-score indicates that a portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to reputational risks and suggesting a need to enhance information literacy among its researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution's Z-score of -0.445 is slightly higher than the national average of -0.721, both of which are within a low-risk range. This subtle difference suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants review before it escalates. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, this signal invites the institution to proactively ensure that its authorship practices remain transparent and accountable across all disciplines. It serves as a prompt to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and the potential for 'honorary' or political authorship practices to emerge.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.749, indicating a slight divergence from the national profile, where the Z-score is -0.809. This result points to a low-level signal of risk activity that is not as prevalent in the rest of the country. A wide positive gap can signal a sustainability risk where prestige is dependent on external partners. The institution's score, while low, suggests its scientific prestige is less dependent on external leadership than the national average, but it still reflects a dynamic where there is room to strengthen the impact of its own internally-led research and build a more structural, autonomous scientific capacity.
With a Z-score of -0.585, the institution displays notable resilience against a systemic risk that is more pronounced at the national level (Z-score 0.425). This suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the country's systemic risks related to hyperprolificacy. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The institution's low score indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, successfully avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, thereby prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is well within the very low-risk category, aligning with the low-risk national standard (Z-score -0.010). This low-profile consistency demonstrates that the absence of risk signals at the university is in line with the national environment. In-house journals can be valuable, but excessive dependence on them raises conflicts of interest. The university's minimal reliance on such channels indicates that its scientific production is consistently subjected to independent external peer review, which enhances its global visibility and confirms its commitment to competitive validation over potential 'fast tracks' for publication.
The institution exhibits total operational silence in this area, with a Z-score of -1.015 that is even lower than the already minimal national average of -0.515. This exceptional result signifies an absence of risk signals that surpasses the national standard. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing a study into minimal units to inflate productivity. The university's extremely low score demonstrates a robust commitment to publishing complete, significant research, thereby avoiding the distortion of scientific evidence and prioritizing the generation of new knowledge over volume.
