| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.119 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.381 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.592 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.700 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.504 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.164 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.934 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.104 | -0.515 |
Hangzhou Medical College demonstrates a robust overall performance in scientific integrity, with a global risk score of -0.375, indicating a profile that is healthier than the international baseline. The institution's primary strengths lie in its significant outperformance of national trends regarding Institutional Self-Citation and the Rate of Hyperprolific Authors, showcasing a culture that prioritizes external validation and substantive contribution over insular or metric-driven behaviors. However, a key vulnerability emerges in the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, which presents a medium risk and deviates from the low-risk national context. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the College's scientific leadership is most prominent in the fields of Dentistry, Physics and Astronomy, Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, and Medicine. While the institutional mission was not specified, any commitment to academic excellence and social responsibility is directly supported by the strong integrity profile. Nevertheless, the identified risk of publishing in low-quality channels could undermine this mission by compromising the impact and credibility of its research. To fully align its operational practices with its thematic strengths, it is recommended that the College focuses on enhancing researcher literacy regarding the selection of high-quality publication venues, thereby safeguarding its reputational capital and research investment.
The institution presents a Z-score of -1.119, a value significantly lower than the national average of -0.062. This result demonstrates a consistent and low-risk profile, where the complete absence of problematic signals aligns with the secure standard observed nationally. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the institution's very low rate confirms that its crediting practices are transparent and not inflated by strategic "affiliation shopping," reflecting a clear and unambiguous assignment of institutional credit for its research output.
With a Z-score of -0.381 compared to the country's -0.050, the institution maintains a very low-risk position that is consistent with the national environment. This absence of significant retraction events suggests that the institution's pre-publication quality control mechanisms are functioning effectively. It indicates a strong culture of integrity and methodological rigor, where potential errors are likely addressed before they escalate, thereby protecting the scientific record and institutional reputation from the vulnerabilities of systemic malpractice.
The institution's Z-score of -1.592 is exceptionally low, particularly when contrasted with the medium-risk national average of 0.045. This demonstrates a successful preventive isolation, where the College does not replicate the risk dynamics prevalent in its environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's minimal rate signals a strong outward-looking research culture that avoids 'echo chambers.' This result suggests that the institution's academic influence is built on broad recognition from the global scientific community rather than being inflated by endogamous internal dynamics.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 0.700, a medium-risk value that marks a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.024. This finding suggests the College has a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers and constitutes a critical alert. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals indicates that a significant portion of its scientific output is channeled through media failing to meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and suggests an urgent need to improve information literacy among its researchers to prevent the misallocation of resources to 'predatory' or low-impact venues.
The institution's Z-score of -0.504 is slightly higher than the national average of -0.721, though both fall within the low-risk category. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants review before it potentially escalates. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' this signal suggests a need to ensure that authorship practices across all disciplines remain transparent and accountable. It serves as a prompt to proactively distinguish between necessary large-scale collaboration and the risk of 'honorary' authorship, which can dilute individual responsibility.
With a Z-score of -0.164, the institution shows a slight divergence from the very low-risk national benchmark of -0.809. This indicates the emergence of a risk signal that is not prominent in the rest of the country. A wider gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige may be more dependent on external collaborations where it does not hold intellectual leadership. While partnering is essential, this value invites a strategic reflection on whether the institution's high-impact metrics are derived from its own structural capacity or from a supporting role in partnerships, highlighting a potential risk to long-term scientific sustainability.
The institution's Z-score of -0.934 is in the very low-risk category, standing in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.425. This indicates a form of preventive isolation, where the College effectively avoids a risk dynamic present in the wider national system. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the credibility of meaningful intellectual contribution. The institution's low score in this area is a positive sign of a healthy balance between quantity and quality, steering clear of practices like coercive authorship or metric-chasing that can compromise the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is very low and aligns well with the low-risk national average of -0.010, demonstrating low-profile consistency. This indicates that the College does not excessively rely on its own journals for publication, thereby avoiding potential conflicts of interest where an institution acts as both judge and party. By favoring external dissemination channels, the institution ensures its research undergoes independent peer review, which enhances its global visibility and confirms that its output is validated through standard competitive processes rather than internal 'fast tracks'.
With a Z-score of -1.104, the institution demonstrates a total operational silence regarding this risk, performing even better than the very low-risk national average of -0.515. This exceptional result indicates a strong institutional norm against the practice of fragmenting a single study into 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity. It reflects a commitment to publishing complete, coherent, and significant new knowledge, which strengthens the scientific evidence base and respects the resources of the peer-review system.
