| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.322 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.447 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.908 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.495 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.102 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.167 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.749 | -0.515 |
Jilin Jianzhu University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.301 indicating performance that is significantly better than the global average. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths in controlling risks related to retracted output, institutional self-citation, hyperprolific authorship, and redundant publications, where it outperforms even the low-risk national benchmarks. These areas of excellence are foundational to its research quality. Analysis of SCImago Institutions Rankings data highlights the university's strong positioning in key thematic areas, particularly in Earth and Planetary Sciences, Agricultural and Biological Sciences, and Environmental Science. While a specific institutional mission was not available for this analysis, the observed commitment to research integrity aligns with the universal academic values of excellence and rigor. However, moderate risk signals in the rates of multiple affiliations, publication in discontinued journals, and a notable gap in impact leadership suggest areas where governance could be strengthened to prevent potential reputational harm. Addressing these vulnerabilities will be crucial to ensure that operational practices fully support the university's clear thematic strengths and its implicit commitment to high-quality, socially responsible research.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 0.322, which contrasts with the national average of -0.062. This moderate deviation suggests the university is more sensitive to this risk factor than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of collaboration, a rate that is notably higher than the country's standard warrants a closer look. It is advisable to review these patterns to ensure they reflect genuine scientific partnerships rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit through practices like “affiliation shopping,” thereby safeguarding the transparency of the university's collaborative footprint.
With a Z-score of -0.447, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of retracted publications, performing even better than the low-risk national average of -0.050. This low-profile consistency indicates that the university’s quality control and supervision mechanisms are highly effective. The near absence of these critical events suggests a strong institutional culture of integrity and methodological rigor, where potential errors are identified and corrected prior to publication, reinforcing the reliability and trustworthiness of its scientific output.
The university's Z-score of -0.908 is exceptionally low, especially when compared to the national average of 0.045. This result demonstrates a form of preventive isolation, where the institution successfully avoids the risk dynamics observed more broadly in its environment. Such a low rate of institutional self-citation is a strong positive signal, indicating that the university's research is validated by the wider scientific community and is not confined to an internal 'echo chamber.' This commitment to external scrutiny effectively mitigates any risk of endogamous impact inflation and highlights the global relevance of its work.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 0.495 in this area, a figure that shows a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.024. This heightened rate acts as a critical alert regarding the selection of publication venues. A significant proportion of output channeled through media that fail to meet international standards exposes the institution to severe reputational risks. This finding suggests an urgent need to enhance information literacy and due diligence protocols among researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality journals and to protect the institution's scientific record.
The institution maintains a Z-score of -1.102, which is notably lower than the national average of -0.721. This demonstrates a prudent profile, suggesting that the university manages its authorship processes with greater rigor than the national standard. This controlled rate indicates a healthy culture that effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and potential author list inflation. By ensuring that authorship reflects genuine intellectual contribution, the institution reinforces individual accountability and the transparency of its research practices.
The institution's Z-score of 0.167 presents a monitoring alert, as it is an unusual risk level when compared to the national standard of -0.809. This wide positive gap, where overall impact is significantly higher than the impact of research led by the institution, signals a potential sustainability risk. It suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, stemming from strategic positioning in collaborations rather than from its own structural capacity. A qualitative review is required to understand the causes and to develop strategies that foster greater internal intellectual leadership.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution shows a near-complete absence of hyperprolific authorship, standing in stark contrast to the moderate national average of 0.425. This demonstrates a clear preventive isolation from a risk dynamic present in the wider system. This excellent result points to a healthy institutional balance between quantity and quality, discouraging practices that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record. It suggests a culture where meaningful intellectual contribution is valued above artificially inflated publication counts.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is very low and aligns well with the low-risk national average of -0.010. This low-profile consistency indicates a strong commitment to external, independent peer review. By avoiding over-reliance on its own journals, the university mitigates the risk of academic endogamy and potential conflicts of interest. This practice enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, ensuring its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels rather than internal 'fast tracks.'
The institution's Z-score of -0.749 signifies a state of total operational silence on this indicator, performing even better than the country's already very low average of -0.515. This exemplary result demonstrates an absence of risk signals that is even below the national baseline. It strongly indicates a research culture that prioritizes the generation of significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of productivity through data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific evidence base and respecting the academic review system.
