Anyang Normal University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Anyang Normal University presents a dual profile characterized by significant strengths in research integrity alongside critical, isolated vulnerabilities. With a commendable overall score of 0.855, the institution demonstrates a robust culture of integrity in key areas, showing very low risk in hyperprolific authorship, redundant output, and publishing in its own journals, while effectively mitigating the national trend of institutional self-citation. These strengths provide a solid foundation for its notable research capacity, particularly in Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (ranked 85th in China), Chemistry (295th), and Engineering (365th), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, this positive landscape is seriously challenged by a significant risk level in retracted publications and medium-level risks in multiple affiliations and output in discontinued journals. Although a specific institutional mission was not available for this analysis, these vulnerabilities directly contradict the universal academic principles of excellence and social responsibility. Failure to address them could undermine the credibility of its strongest research areas. By implementing targeted governance and training to correct these specific issues, Anyang Normal University can protect its academic reputation, align its operational practices with its research achievements, and consolidate its commitment to scientific integrity.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution exhibits a Z-score of 0.820, which represents a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.062. This suggests that the university is more sensitive than its national peers to risk factors associated with multiple affiliations. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this elevated rate warrants a review of internal policies. The disparity indicates that the institution's affiliation patterns are more pronounced than the national norm, creating a potential vulnerability for strategic practices like “affiliation shopping” designed to artificially inflate institutional credit, which could compromise the transparency of its collaborative footprint.

Rate of Retracted Output

A Z-score of 2.559 marks a severe discrepancy when compared to the low-risk national average of -0.050, indicating atypical risk activity that requires a deep and urgent integrity assessment. Retractions are complex events, but a rate this significantly higher than the global average points to a systemic vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This critical signal suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be failing, potentially due to recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor. This situation poses a direct threat to the institution's scientific credibility and demands immediate qualitative verification by management to identify and rectify the root causes.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of -0.453 is well below the national average of 0.045, demonstrating notable institutional resilience. While the country shows a medium-level risk in this area, the university’s control mechanisms appear to effectively mitigate these systemic tendencies. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, by maintaining a low rate, the institution successfully avoids the creation of scientific 'echo chambers' and the risk of endogamous impact inflation. This prudent approach ensures that its academic influence is validated by the broader global community rather than being oversized by internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

With a Z-score of 1.528, the institution shows a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.024, indicating a greater sensitivity to risk factors in its publication channel selection. A high proportion of output in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence. This score suggests that a significant portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and points to an urgent need for enhanced information literacy among researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publishing platforms.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution's Z-score of -1.025, compared to the national average of -0.721, reflects a prudent profile in managing authorship. Although both the university and the country operate at a low-risk level, the institution's even lower score indicates that its processes are managed with more rigor than the national standard. This demonstrates a healthy approach that effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration in 'Big Science' and questionable practices like 'honorary' authorship. By maintaining this control, the university reinforces individual accountability and transparency in its scientific contributions.

Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership

The institution's Z-score of -0.458 represents a slight divergence from the very low-risk national average of -0.809. This indicates that the university shows minor signals of risk activity in an area where the rest of the country shows virtually none. While a small gap is normal, this signal suggests a minor dependency on external partners for achieving impact. Although the institution's scientific prestige appears largely structural and based on internal capacity, this subtle indicator warrants monitoring to ensure that its excellence metrics consistently result from its own intellectual leadership within collaborations, thereby securing long-term scientific sustainability.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution demonstrates a state of preventive isolation from the national trend, where the average score is 0.425 (a medium risk level). The university does not replicate the risk dynamics related to hyperprolificity observed in its environment. This very low rate is a strong indicator of a healthy academic culture that prioritizes quality and meaningful intellectual contribution over sheer publication volume. This approach effectively mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or data fragmentation, safeguarding the integrity of the scientific record and promoting a balanced assessment of researcher productivity.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is indicative of low-profile consistency, as the absence of risk signals is even more pronounced than the low national standard (-0.010). This demonstrates a strong commitment to global visibility and independent external peer review. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the university circumvents potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels, rather than using internal 'fast tracks' that might bypass rigorous scrutiny.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.704 signifies a state of total operational silence on this risk indicator, performing even better than the already low-risk national average of -0.515. This absence of signals, even below the national baseline, points to a robust institutional culture that discourages data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' It suggests a clear prioritization of significant, coherent studies over the artificial inflation of productivity metrics. This commitment to publishing complete and meaningful work strengthens the scientific evidence base and reflects a high standard of research ethics.