| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.934 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.248 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.312 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
2.145 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.241 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.270 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.525 | -0.515 |
Fuyang Normal University demonstrates a dual profile in scientific integrity, marked by commendable strengths in authorship practices and notable vulnerabilities in publication and affiliation strategies. With an overall integrity score of 0.288, the institution exhibits exceptional control over institutional self-citation, hyper-authorship, and hyper-prolificacy, indicating a robust internal culture of responsible authorship. However, this is contrasted by medium-risk indicators in multiple affiliations, retracted output, and publication in discontinued journals, which deviate from national trends and require strategic intervention. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's key thematic strengths lie in Energy, Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, Environmental Science, and Business, Management and Accounting. While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, the identified risks—particularly those related to publication quality and retractions—could challenge any mission centered on academic excellence and social responsibility. To safeguard its reputation and the impact of its strongest research areas, the university is advised to leverage its solid foundation in authorship integrity to develop and implement stricter governance protocols for its publication and collaboration strategies, ensuring that its scientific output fully aligns with global standards of quality and transparency.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.934, a figure that shows a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.062. This suggests the university is more sensitive to risk factors in this area than its national peers. This elevated rate warrants a review of affiliation policies, as disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” It is crucial to ensure that declared affiliations reflect substantive, transparent collaborations rather than a practice aimed at artificially boosting institutional metrics.
With a Z-score of 0.248, the institution's rate of retractions is notably higher than the national average of -0.050. This moderate deviation indicates a greater sensitivity to factors leading to retractions compared to the national context. A rate significantly higher than the average alerts to a potential 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 protect the institution's scientific reputation.
The institution demonstrates an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.312, positioning it as a positive outlier against the national average of 0.045. This profile of preventive isolation shows that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. Such a low rate reflects a healthy integration with the global scientific community, effectively avoiding the 'echo chambers' where an institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This indicates that the institution's academic influence is being built on broad community recognition rather than on endogamous or internal dynamics.
The university's Z-score of 2.145 marks a significant deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.024. This indicates a greater institutional sensitivity to this risk factor compared to its peers. A high proportion of publications in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score suggests that a significant portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need for improved information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution's Z-score of -1.241 is well below the national average of -0.721, demonstrating low-profile consistency in this area. The absence of risk signals is in line with the national standard, indicating that the university's authorship practices are well-governed. This very low score confirms that the institution effectively avoids the risk of author list inflation, thereby maintaining individual accountability and transparency in its publications. This reflects a culture that values genuine contribution over the artificial inflation of authorship metrics.
The institution registers a Z-score of 0.270, a result that triggers a monitoring alert as it is an unusual risk level when compared to the national standard of -0.809. This wide positive gap—where global impact is higher than the impact of research led by the institution—signals a potential sustainability risk. This value suggests that a portion of the university's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, rather than structural. This invites reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from real internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution shows an exemplary low rate of hyperprolific authors, especially when contrasted with the medium-risk national average of 0.425. This demonstrates a clear preventive isolation, as the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. This very low indicator suggests a healthy balance between quantity and quality of output, successfully avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation. It points to an institutional culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the simple inflation of publication metrics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.010, indicating a profile of low-profile consistency. This absence of risk signals aligns well with the national standard and points to sound publication practices. By minimizing its reliance on in-house journals, the university avoids potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which strengthens its global visibility and confirms its commitment to competitive, merit-based validation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.525 is almost identical to the national average of -0.515, demonstrating integrity synchrony with its environment. This total alignment reflects a context of maximum scientific security regarding data fragmentation. The very low score indicates that the university effectively prevents the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This commitment to publishing significant, new knowledge strengthens the scientific record and shows respect for the academic review system.
