| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
3.627 | 1.166 |
|
Retracted Output
|
4.165 | 0.051 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.300 | -0.204 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.151 | -0.165 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.753 | -0.671 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.935 | -0.559 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | 0.005 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.075 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.496 | -0.176 |
Yuanpei University of Medical Technology presents a complex scientific integrity profile, marked by a significant overall risk score of 1.443. This score reflects a duality in its operational practices: on one hand, the institution demonstrates exceptional control and adherence to best practices in several key areas, notably showing very low risk in Institutional Self-Citation, Hyperprolific Authorship, and publication in its own journals. These strengths suggest a robust internal culture that values external validation and individual accountability. However, this positive performance is severely counterbalanced by critical alerts in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and the Rate of Retracted Output, which are not only high in absolute terms but also significantly accentuate national vulnerabilities. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university holds notable thematic strengths in Medicine, Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, and Environmental Science. While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, the identified critical risks directly threaten the universal academic pillars of excellence and credibility. High retraction rates, in particular, can undermine public trust and the perceived value of its research in these key fields. To safeguard its reputation and build upon its thematic strengths, it is recommended that the university undertake a strategic review of its authorship, affiliation, and pre-publication quality assurance policies to align its entire research ecosystem with its evident areas of integrity excellence.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 3.627 in this indicator, a value that points to a significant risk level and starkly contrasts with the national average of 1.166. This comparison reveals that the university is not just following a national trend but is actively amplifying a vulnerability present in the wider system. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, such a high rate suggests a systemic pattern that warrants investigation. This practice may be strategically inflating institutional credit or pointing towards "affiliation shopping" by researchers, a dynamic that can distort institutional performance metrics and dilute the clarity of research contributions.
With a Z-score of 4.165, the institution's rate of retractions is critically high, especially when compared to the country's moderate average of 0.051. This severe divergence indicates that the university is amplifying systemic vulnerabilities related to research quality control. A rate this far above the norm moves beyond the realm of honest error correction and strongly suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be failing systemically. This constitutes a significant vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, pointing to possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate and thorough qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation.
The institution demonstrates an exemplary Z-score of -1.300, indicating a very low risk of excessive self-citation, which is well below the country's already low average of -0.204. This demonstrates a healthy low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns perfectly with the national standard for external engagement. This performance is a clear strength, indicating that the institution avoids the creation of scientific 'echo chambers' and does not inflate its impact through endogamous practices. Instead, its academic influence appears to be genuinely validated by the broader international scientific community, reflecting a commitment to external scrutiny and global relevance.
The institution's Z-score of 0.151 places it at a medium risk level, showing a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.165, which sits in the low-risk category. This indicates that the university shows a greater sensitivity than its national peers to the risk of publishing in problematic venues. A high proportion of output in such journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This score suggests 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 highlighting a need to reinforce information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of -0.753, the institution maintains a low-risk, prudent profile that is even more rigorous than the national standard (-0.671). This result indicates that the university manages its authorship attribution processes with commendable control. The data suggests a successful distinction between necessary, large-scale collaboration and the potential for author list inflation. By keeping this rate low, the institution reinforces individual accountability and transparency in its research, avoiding practices like 'honorary' or political authorships that can dilute the meaning of scholarly contribution.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.935, a medium-risk value that moderately deviates from the low-risk national average of -0.559. This positive gap suggests the institution is more sensitive than its peers to a reliance on external partners for its citation impact. A high value here signals a potential sustainability risk, where scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous rather than a product of its own structural capacity. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether the institution's excellence metrics result from its own internal capabilities or from a positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is in the very low-risk category, demonstrating a preventive isolation from the national trend, where the average score is 0.005 (medium risk). This is a significant area of strength, indicating that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment regarding extreme publication volumes. This strong performance suggests a healthy institutional culture that prioritizes quality over sheer quantity, effectively mitigating risks such as coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or the assignment of authorship without meaningful intellectual contribution, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a very low rate of publication in its own journals, a figure that aligns well with the low-risk national average of -0.075. This low-profile consistency is a positive signal of good governance. By avoiding over-reliance on its in-house journals, the institution mitigates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production predominantly undergoes independent, external peer review, which is essential for achieving global visibility and competitive validation, rather than using internal channels as potential 'fast tracks' for publication.
The institution's Z-score of 0.496 places it in the medium-risk category for redundant publications, representing a moderate deviation from the national low-risk average of -0.176. This suggests the center is more prone than its peers to practices that may artificially inflate publication counts. This value serves as an alert for the potential practice of dividing coherent studies into 'minimal publishable units,' also known as 'salami slicing.' Such a tendency not only overburdens the peer-review system but also distorts the available scientific evidence, prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
