| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.249 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
1.084 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-2.262 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
3.846 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.401 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.909 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -0.515 |
Chongqing College of Architecture and Technology presents a dual profile in scientific integrity, with an overall score of 0.464 reflecting both significant strengths and critical vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates exemplary control across a vast majority of integrity indicators, with seven out of nine metrics registering at the lowest risk level. This indicates robust governance in areas such as institutional self-citation, hyper-authorship, and scientific autonomy, suggesting a solid foundation of responsible research practices. However, this strong performance is severely undermined by two significant-risk indicators: an atypically high Rate of Retracted Output and an alarming Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals. These weaknesses are particularly concerning given the institution's focus in Engineering, a key thematic area identified in the SCImago Institutions Rankings. While the institution's formal mission was not available for this analysis, any mission centered on academic excellence and technological leadership is directly threatened by practices that compromise research quality and credibility. To safeguard its reputation and align its practices with its evident strengths, it is imperative that the College leverages its well-governed areas to implement urgent, targeted interventions focused on pre-publication quality control and enhancing researcher literacy in selecting reputable publication venues.
The institution demonstrates a very conservative approach to affiliations, with a Z-score of -1.249, well below the national average of -0.062. This indicates a clear and transparent affiliation policy. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, the absence of risk signals in this area aligns with the national standard, reflecting a consistent and low-profile operational model that avoids any perception of strategic "affiliation shopping" to inflate institutional credit.
A Z-score of 1.084 for retracted output marks a point of critical concern, especially when contrasted with the low-risk national average of -0.050. This severe discrepancy suggests that the institution's rate of retractions is atypical for its environment and requires an immediate and deep integrity assessment. A rate significantly higher than the average alerts to a vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This pattern points to possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that demands urgent qualitative verification by management.
The institution exhibits an exceptionally low rate of self-citation (Z-score: -2.262), positioning it in stark contrast to the moderate risk level observed nationally (Z-score: 0.045). This demonstrates a remarkable degree of preventive isolation, where the institution successfully avoids the risk dynamics prevalent in its environment. Such a low value confirms that the institution's work is validated by the broader scientific community, steering clear of concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' and ensuring its academic influence is based on external recognition rather than endogamous impact inflation.
The institution's Z-score of 3.846 for publications in discontinued journals represents a severe discrepancy from the national context, where this risk is minimal (Z-score: -0.024). This atypical activity requires a deep integrity assessment. A high proportion of output in such journals is a critical alert regarding the due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It indicates that a significant portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of -1.401, the institution shows a very low incidence of hyper-authored publications, a figure that is well-aligned with, and even more conservative than, the national average of -0.721. This low-profile consistency suggests that authorship practices are well-regulated and transparent. The data indicates that the institution effectively avoids practices like author list inflation or 'honorary' authorship, thereby maintaining individual accountability and the integrity of its research contributions.
The institution shows a Z-score of -1.909 in this indicator, significantly lower than the already low national average of -0.809. This represents a state of total operational silence, with an absence of risk signals even below the national standard. A low gap value is a strong indicator of scientific autonomy and sustainability, suggesting that the institution's prestige is built upon its own structural capacity and intellectual leadership, rather than being dependent on the impact generated by external collaborators.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 indicates a near-total absence of hyperprolific authors, a finding that contrasts sharply with the medium-risk national landscape (Z-score: 0.425). This reflects a successful preventive isolation from broader trends, suggesting a culture that prioritizes quality over sheer quantity. By avoiding extreme individual publication volumes, the institution mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, thereby safeguarding the integrity of its scientific record.
The institution's publication rate in its own journals is minimal, with a Z-score of -0.268, which is consistent with the low-risk national average of -0.010. This low-profile consistency demonstrates a commitment to external validation and global visibility. By not relying excessively on in-house journals, the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review and competes on a global stage.
With a Z-score of -1.186, the institution demonstrates an almost complete absence of redundant publications, a rate even lower than the national average of -0.515. This finding signals total operational silence in this risk area. It indicates a strong institutional policy against data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' where studies are artificially divided to inflate productivity. This commitment to publishing complete and significant findings upholds the integrity of the scientific evidence base and respects the academic review system.
