| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.225 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.672 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.562 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.988 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.212 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.309 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.322 | -0.515 |
West Anhui University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.170 that indicates performance slightly above the global average. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining low-risk research practices, particularly in areas such as the prevention of retractions, hyperprolific authorship, and hyper-authorship, where it effectively insulates itself from national trends. These strengths provide a solid foundation for its notable academic positioning, as evidenced by SCImago Institutions Rankings data, which highlights its leadership in Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology. However, this positive outlook is tempered by moderate risk signals in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, which deviate from the lower-risk national context. While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, these identified vulnerabilities could challenge a commitment to academic excellence and responsible conduct. To ensure its strong thematic performance is built on a sustainable and transparent foundation, it is recommended that the university leverage its clear governance strengths to develop targeted policies that address these specific areas of moderate risk, thereby reinforcing its overall integrity framework.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 1.225, which represents a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.062. This suggests that the university shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors in this area than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the higher rate observed here warrants a review of affiliation patterns. The data indicates a need to ensure that these practices genuinely reflect substantive collaboration rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," a dynamic that appears more pronounced at the university than in the rest of the country.
With a Z-score of -0.672, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of retracted publications, a figure that aligns positively with the low-risk national standard (Z-score of -0.050). This low-profile consistency is a strong indicator of effective pre-publication quality control and a healthy integrity culture. The absence of significant risk signals in this critical area suggests that the university's supervision and methodological rigor are robust, successfully preventing the types of unintentional errors or potential malpractice that can lead to retractions and reputational damage.
The university demonstrates notable institutional resilience with a Z-score of -0.562, positioning it in a low-risk category, in contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.045. This indicates that the institution's control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk prevalent in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university successfully avoids the national tendency toward 'echo chambers' or endogamous impact inflation. This result suggests that the institution's academic influence is validated by the broader global community rather than being oversized by internal dynamics, reflecting strong external engagement and scrutiny.
A moderate deviation is observed in this indicator, with the institution's Z-score at 0.988 compared to the national average of -0.024. This discrepancy suggests the university is more exposed to this risk than its peers. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This score indicates that a portion of the university's scientific output is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need to enhance information literacy among researchers to avoid 'predatory' practices.
The institution maintains a Z-score of -1.212, indicating a very low risk that is consistent with, and even stronger than, the low-risk national standard (Z-score of -0.721). This alignment demonstrates a healthy and transparent approach to authorship. The data confirms the absence of signals related to author list inflation or the dilution of individual accountability. This reflects well-governed collaborative practices where author lists accurately represent substantive contributions, distinguishing the university's output from questionable 'honorary' or political authorship practices.
The institution's Z-score of -0.309 reveals a slight divergence from the national context, where the Z-score is -0.809. This indicates the emergence of a minor risk signal that is not apparent in the rest of the country. While the university's impact is predominantly driven by research where it holds intellectual leadership, this score suggests a slightly greater reliance on external partners for impact compared to the national baseline. It signals a potential sustainability risk, inviting reflection on whether all of its prestige is derived from genuine internal capacity versus strategic positioning in collaborations where it may not be the primary intellectual driver.
A clear case of preventive isolation is evident, with the institution's Z-score at an exceptionally low -1.413, in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.425. This result shows that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. By effectively curbing extreme individual publication volumes, the institution avoids the associated risks of coercive authorship, 'salami slicing,' or authorship assigned without real participation. This strong performance indicates an institutional culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record and meaningful intellectual contributions over the pursuit of sheer volume.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates a very low-risk profile that is consistent with the national standard (Z-score of -0.010). This alignment shows a commendable lack of dependence on in-house journals, which can present conflicts of interest by having the institution act as both judge and party. By favoring external, independent peer review, the university ensures its scientific production undergoes standard competitive validation, thereby avoiding the risks of academic endogamy and enhancing its global visibility and credibility.
A slight divergence is noted in this indicator, as the institution's Z-score of -0.322 (low risk) is slightly higher than the country's very low-risk score of -0.515. This suggests the presence of minor risk signals at the university that are largely absent at the national level. The score points to a potential, albeit low-level, tendency toward data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' where studies might be divided into minimal publishable units to inflate productivity. While not a critical issue, it warrants monitoring to ensure that research is communicated in its most complete and impactful form, upholding the integrity of the scientific evidence base.
