| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.612 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
1.084 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.063 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.730 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.080 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.081 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.045 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -0.515 |
Guangxi University of Chinese Medicine presents a strong overall integrity profile, reflected in a low global risk score of 0.116. The institution demonstrates exceptional control over several key risk areas, with very low indicators for Institutional Self-Citation, Hyperprolific Authors, and Redundant Output, suggesting a robust culture of ethical publication. However, this solid foundation is contrasted by critical vulnerabilities that require immediate attention, most notably a significant-risk level in the Rate of Retracted Output and medium-risk signals in Output in Discontinued Journals and the Gap in Impact. These weaknesses are particularly concerning as they could undermine the institution's reputational strengths, which, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, are concentrated in high-impact fields such as Chemistry, Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, and Medicine. Although the institution's specific mission was not localized for this report, any mission centered on academic excellence and social responsibility is directly threatened by risks that compromise scientific credibility. To safeguard its achievements and ensure long-term trust, the university should leverage its existing strengths in research integrity to develop targeted interventions aimed at mitigating these specific, high-impact risks.
The institution demonstrates a prudent profile regarding multiple affiliations, with a Z-score of -0.612, which is notably lower than the national average of -0.062. This indicates that the university manages its affiliation processes with more rigor than the national standard. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the institution's controlled rate suggests it effectively avoids practices aimed at artificially inflating institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," thereby maintaining clarity and transparency in its collaborative footprint.
A severe discrepancy exists between the institution's performance and the national context, with its Z-score at a significant-risk level of 1.084 compared to the country's low-risk average of -0.050. This atypical level of risk activity requires a deep integrity assessment. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the global average alerts to a critical vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. It suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to prevent further reputational damage.
The institution shows an exemplary case of preventive isolation from national trends, with a very low Z-score of -1.063, while the country average indicates a medium risk (Z-score: 0.045). This demonstrates that the center does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural to reflect ongoing research, but the institution's exceptionally low rate signals a strong reliance on external validation. This practice effectively prevents the formation of 'echo chambers' and avoids the risk of endogamous impact inflation, confirming that its academic influence is driven by global community recognition rather than internal dynamics.
A moderate deviation from the national norm is observed, with the institution's Z-score at a medium-risk level of 0.730, in contrast to the country's low-risk average of -0.024. This suggests the center shows greater sensitivity to risk factors than its peers in selecting publication venues. A high proportion of output in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence. This Z-score indicates that a portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to reputational risks and suggesting a need to improve information literacy to avoid predatory or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of -1.080, significantly lower than the national average of -0.721, the institution maintains a prudent profile in authorship practices. This suggests that its processes are managed with more rigor than the national standard. The low rate indicates that the university successfully distinguishes between necessary large-scale collaboration and potential author list inflation. This helps ensure that authorship reflects meaningful contribution, thereby upholding individual accountability and transparency in its research output.
This indicator presents a monitoring alert, as the institution's medium-risk Z-score of 0.081 is an unusual level for the national standard, where the average is a very low -0.809. This wide positive gap signals a potential sustainability risk, suggesting that the institution's scientific prestige may be dependent on external partners rather than being structurally ingrained. A high value warns that its excellence metrics could result more from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership, rather than from its own internal capacity. This invites a strategic reflection on fostering and promoting research led by its own academics.
The institution effectively isolates itself from national risk dynamics in this area, showing a very low Z-score of -1.045 compared to the country's medium-risk average of 0.425. This preventive stance indicates strong internal governance. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. By maintaining a very low rate, the institution mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, demonstrating a clear focus on the integrity of the scientific record over the simple inflation of metrics.
The institution exhibits low-profile consistency, with a very low Z-score of -0.268 that aligns with the low-risk environment at the national level (Z-score: -0.010). This absence of risk signals is consistent with the national standard. While in-house journals can be valuable, excessive dependence on them raises conflict-of-interest concerns. The institution's low score indicates it avoids academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review and is not funneled through internal 'fast tracks,' thereby enhancing its global visibility and competitive validation.
In this indicator, the institution demonstrates total operational silence, with a Z-score of -1.186 that is even lower than the country's very low average of -0.515. This absence of risk signals, even below the national baseline, is exemplary. The data shows no evidence of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' a practice where a study is divided into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity. This commitment to publishing coherent and significant work reinforces the integrity of its research and highlights a focus on generating new knowledge rather than maximizing publication volume.
