| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.979 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.559 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.113 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.435 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.016 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.819 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.142 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.153 | -0.515 |
Jiujiang University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, characterized by a very low overall risk score (0.003) and significant strengths in maintaining responsible research practices. The institution demonstrates exceptional control over key integrity indicators, including extremely low rates of retractions, institutional self-citation, and hyperprolific authorship, effectively insulating itself from risk dynamics prevalent at the national level. These strengths provide a solid foundation for its academic pursuits, particularly in its highest-ranking thematic areas according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, such as Chemistry, Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, and Environmental Science. However, areas requiring strategic attention have been identified, notably a moderate deviation from national norms in multiple affiliations and publication in discontinued journals, alongside an unusual dependency on external collaborations for research impact. While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, these vulnerabilities could challenge any commitment to sustainable excellence and social responsibility by potentially compromising reputational integrity and hindering the development of self-sufficient research leadership. By addressing these specific medium-risk indicators, Jiujiang University can further solidify its position as a reliable and high-integrity academic institution.
The institution's Z-score of 0.979 contrasts with the national average of -0.062, indicating a moderate deviation from the country's standard practices. This suggests the university shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors related to affiliation compared to its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, a disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” This divergence from the national norm warrants a review to ensure that all declared affiliations reflect substantive and transparent collaborations rather than purely tactical arrangements.
With a Z-score of -0.559, well below the national average of -0.050, the institution demonstrates an exemplary record in minimizing retracted publications. This low-profile consistency shows that the absence of risk signals in this area aligns perfectly with the secure national standard. This result points towards effective and responsible supervision and robust pre-publication quality control mechanisms. The institution's performance suggests a strong integrity culture where potential errors are managed proactively, preventing the systemic failures that can lead to a high rate of retractions.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.113, which is significantly lower than the national average of 0.045. This pattern of preventive isolation indicates that the university does not replicate the medium-risk self-citation dynamics observed across the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution’s very low rate is a positive signal of broad external validation and integration into the global scientific community. This performance effectively mitigates the risk of creating 'echo chambers' and ensures that its academic influence is driven by widespread recognition rather than endogamous or internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of 1.435 marks a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.024, highlighting a greater institutional sensitivity to this particular risk factor. This elevated rate constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. A high proportion of publications in such journals indicates that a significant portion of scientific output is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need to enhance information literacy among researchers to avoid channeling valuable resources into 'predatory' or low-quality venues.
The institution maintains a Z-score of -1.016, which is lower than the national average of -0.721. This prudent profile demonstrates that the university manages its authorship attribution processes with more rigor than the national standard. This is a positive indicator of good governance, suggesting that the institution effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration in "Big Science" contexts and practices of 'honorary' or political authorship. By maintaining a lower rate, the university promotes individual accountability and transparency in its research contributions.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.819, a figure that generates a monitoring alert due to its stark contrast with the national average of -0.809. This unusually high risk level for the national standard requires a careful review of its causes. A very wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a potential sustainability risk. This value suggests that the institution's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, stemming from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership, rather than from its own structural and internal capacity for innovation.
With a Z-score of -1.142, the institution stands in sharp contrast to the national average of 0.425. This state of preventive isolation shows that the university successfully avoids the risk dynamics related to hyperprolific authors that are present elsewhere in the country. This very low rate is a strong indicator of a healthy balance between productivity and research quality. It suggests the institution fosters an environment that discourages practices such as coercive authorship or assigning credit without real participation, prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of quantitative metrics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is well-aligned with the low-risk national average of -0.010. This low-profile consistency demonstrates that the university's practices regarding in-house publications are in sync with the national standard. By not over-relying on its own journals, the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy where production might bypass independent external peer review. This approach enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its research, reinforcing a commitment to international standards.
The institution's Z-score of -0.153 indicates a slight divergence from the national average of -0.515. Although the risk level is low, the university shows early signals of this activity that are not as apparent in the rest of the country, where the risk is very low. This suggests a potential vulnerability to 'salami slicing,' the practice of dividing a single study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. While not a major concern, this signal warrants a proactive review to reinforce the importance of publishing complete, significant new knowledge over fragmenting data, a practice that can distort scientific evidence.
