Shandong Second Medical University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Shandong Second Medical University demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.533 indicating performance significantly better than the global average. The institution exhibits exceptional strength in eight of the nine indicators analyzed, with particularly low-risk signals in areas such as Institutional Self-Citation, Hyperprolific Authorship, and the Impact Gap of its led research, suggesting a culture of external validation and a focus on substantive scientific contributions. This strong foundation in research integrity is a key asset. However, a notable vulnerability exists in the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, which presents a medium-level risk and deviates from the national trend. Thematically, the university's strengths are evident in its SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly in Dentistry (ranked 61st in China), Engineering (118th), and Agricultural and Biological Sciences (128th). While the institutional mission was not available for direct comparison, this strong integrity profile aligns with universal academic values of excellence and social responsibility. The identified risk in publication channel selection could, however, undermine this position by associating the institution's work with low-quality outlets. To fully leverage its strengths, it is recommended that the university focuses on implementing stricter due diligence policies for journal selection, thereby safeguarding its reputational capital and ensuring its research impact is both genuine and sustainable.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of -0.564, which is notably lower than the national average of -0.062. This result indicates a prudent and well-managed approach to academic collaboration. While multiple affiliations are a common and legitimate feature of modern research, the university's more controlled rate suggests its processes are more rigorous than the national standard. This demonstrates a clear avoidance of practices aimed at strategically inflating institutional credit, ensuring that affiliations reflect genuine and substantial partnerships rather than mere "affiliation shopping."

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.540, the institution shows a near-total absence of risk signals, a figure that is significantly better than the already low national average of -0.050. This low-profile consistency is a strong testament to the effectiveness of its internal quality control mechanisms. Retractions can sometimes reflect responsible error correction, but such a minimal rate suggests that the university's pre-publication supervision and methodological rigor are systemically robust. This performance indicates a mature integrity culture that successfully prevents recurring malpractice and ensures the reliability of its scientific output from the outset.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of -1.128 contrasts sharply with the national average of 0.045, which signals a medium-level risk for the country. This demonstrates a case of preventive isolation, where the university successfully avoids the risk dynamics prevalent in its environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's exceptionally low rate is a powerful indicator that it is not operating within a scientific 'echo chamber.' This result suggests that the university's academic influence is validated by the broader international community, not inflated by endogamous internal dynamics, reflecting a high degree of external scrutiny and global integration.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 0.531 represents a medium-level risk and a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.024. This finding highlights a greater sensitivity to risk factors in publication practices compared to its national peers. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. This score indicates that a significant portion of the university's scientific production may be channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need for enhanced information literacy to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality outlets.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.059, the institution maintains a more prudent profile than the national average of -0.721. This indicates that its processes for managing authorship are more rigorous than the national standard. While extensive author lists are legitimate in certain 'Big Science' fields, the university's controlled rate outside these contexts suggests a healthy approach to collaboration. This practice effectively mitigates the risk of author list inflation, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency and distinguishing necessary large-scale collaboration from potentially problematic 'honorary' authorship practices.

Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.675, indicating a near-total absence of risk signals and a performance that is even stronger than the country's already very low average of -0.809. This exceptional result points to a high degree of scientific autonomy and internal capacity. A wide gap can suggest that an institution's prestige is dependent on external partners. In contrast, this minimal gap demonstrates that the university's scientific excellence is structural and endogenous. Its high-impact research is a result of real internal capacity and intellectual leadership, not merely a reflection of strategic positioning in collaborations led by others.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413 places it in the very low-risk category, standing in stark contrast to the national average of 0.425, which falls into the medium-risk range. This signifies a successful preventive isolation from national trends, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the credibility of meaningful intellectual contribution. By avoiding this pattern, the institution effectively mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, demonstrating a culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the pursuit of inflated productivity metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates a very low reliance on its own journals, performing better than the national average of -0.010. This low-profile consistency underscores a commitment to external and independent validation. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. The university's minimal use of such channels shows that its scientific production consistently undergoes external peer review, which avoids the risk of bypassing competitive validation and significantly enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -1.186 signals a total operational silence on this indicator, a result that is even more robust than the country's very low-risk average of -0.515. This outstanding performance indicates a strong institutional policy, either formal or informal, that discourages data fragmentation. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications often points to 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing a single study into minimal units to inflate productivity. The near-complete absence of this signal suggests the university fosters a culture that prioritizes the publication of coherent, significant new knowledge over artificially increasing publication volume.