| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.222 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.108 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.715 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.545 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.988 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.406 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -0.515 |
The China Europe International Business School demonstrates an exceptionally strong scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.647 that indicates a performance significantly superior to the national average. The institution's main strengths lie in its clear disconnection from systemic risks prevalent in its environment, particularly regarding Institutional Self-Citation and the presence of Hyperprolific Authors, where it maintains a 'very low' risk profile in contrast to the country's 'medium' risk level. This robust integrity framework provides a solid foundation for the institution's recognized excellence in its core thematic areas, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings in Business, Management and Accounting, and Economics, Econometrics and Finance. The only area for strategic monitoring is a slight dependency on external collaborations for impact, a minor vulnerability in an otherwise outstanding ethical landscape. By maintaining these high standards, the institution ensures its academic prestige is both legitimate and sustainable, reinforcing its position as a leader in responsible and impactful research.
The institution presents a Z-score of -1.222, a value indicating a near-total absence of risk, which is notably lower than the national average of -0.062. This result suggests a clear and consistent policy regarding author affiliations. The institution's performance demonstrates a low-profile consistency that surpasses the already low-risk national standard. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, the school's exceptionally low rate signals that its practices are transparent and not geared towards strategically inflating institutional credit or engaging in “affiliation shopping,” thereby reinforcing the clarity and integrity of its collaborative footprint.
With a Z-score of -0.108, the institution operates within a low-risk framework, showing slightly better performance than the national average of -0.050. This prudent profile suggests that the institution manages its quality control processes with more rigor than the national standard. Retractions can be complex events, but a low score like this indicates that the mechanisms for supervision and methodological review prior to publication are effective. The data does not suggest any systemic failure in the institution's integrity culture, but rather a responsible and well-managed approach to scholarly communication.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.715, reflecting a 'very low' risk level that stands in stark contrast to the 'medium' risk national average of 0.045. This significant difference indicates a successful preventive isolation, where the institution avoids replicating the risk dynamics observed in its environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the school's extremely low rate demonstrates a strong integration into the global scientific community and a reliance on external validation. This performance effectively mitigates any risk of creating 'echo chambers' or endogamously inflating its impact, confirming that its academic influence is driven by broad recognition rather than internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.545 is exceptionally low, positioning it well below the national average of -0.024. This performance reflects a consistent and robust due diligence process in selecting publication venues. The near-absence of publications in journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards indicates that the institution is not exposed to the reputational risks associated with 'predatory' practices. This suggests a high level of information literacy among its researchers and a commitment to channeling scientific output through credible and reputable media.
With a Z-score of -0.988, the institution maintains a prudent profile that is more rigorous than the national standard (-0.721), even within a shared low-risk context. This indicates that the institution's authorship patterns are more conservative than the national average. In fields outside of 'Big Science,' high rates of hyper-authorship can signal author list inflation. The institution's lower score suggests a culture that values clear individual accountability and transparency, effectively discouraging practices like 'honorary' or political authorship and ensuring that credit is assigned appropriately.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.406, which, while categorized as 'low' risk, represents a slight divergence from the 'very low' risk national average of -0.809. This is the only indicator where the institution displays a higher risk signal than its national context. This gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is somewhat more dependent on external collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. While partnering is crucial, this value serves as a strategic alert that its high-impact research is partially reliant on exogenous factors, inviting reflection on how to strengthen internal capacity to ensure its long-term scientific sustainability and leadership.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, marking a clear state of preventive isolation from the national trend, which sits at a 'medium' risk level of 0.425. This stark contrast is a strong positive signal. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme publication volumes often challenge the feasibility of meaningful intellectual contribution. The institution's near-zero incidence of this phenomenon indicates a healthy research culture that prioritizes quality over quantity, effectively preventing risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thereby safeguarding the integrity of its scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates a very low reliance on its own journals, performing significantly better than the national average of -0.010. This low-profile consistency aligns with best practices for avoiding conflicts of interest. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can lead to academic endogamy and bypass independent peer review. The institution's minimal use of such channels confirms its commitment to external validation and global visibility, ensuring its research is assessed through standard competitive processes rather than internal 'fast tracks'.
The institution has a Z-score of -1.186, indicating a near-total operational silence on this indicator and a performance that is even stronger than the very low-risk national average of -0.515. This result points to an exemplary culture of scientific communication. A high rate of bibliographic overlap can indicate 'salami slicing,' where studies are fragmented to inflate publication counts. The institution's extremely low score suggests its researchers are focused on producing substantial, coherent studies that offer significant new knowledge, rather than prioritizing volume, which strengthens the quality and reliability of its scientific contributions.
