| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.902 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.569 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.766 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
2.433 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.228 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-3.772 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -0.515 |
Shanghai Jian Qiao University presents a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, marked by an overall score of -0.160 that indicates a strong alignment with best practices, significantly outperforming national trends in multiple key areas. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths, with very low risk levels in seven out of nine indicators, including Rate of Retracted Output, Institutional Self-Citation, and the Gap between total and leadership impact, signaling a culture of quality control, external validation, and strong intellectual autonomy. However, this solid foundation is contrasted by two areas requiring strategic attention: a medium risk in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals. These vulnerabilities, while specific, could potentially undermine the institution's reputation. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's key research strengths lie in Computer Science, Engineering, and Mathematics. While a formal mission statement was not provided for this analysis, the identified risks—particularly publishing in discontinued journals—could conflict with the universal academic values of excellence and social responsibility. To secure its standing, it is recommended that the university leverage its considerable strengths in research integrity to develop targeted policies and training that address the identified vulnerabilities, thereby ensuring its operational practices fully reflect its evident commitment to high-quality scientific output.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.902 in this indicator, a value that signals a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.062. This suggests that the university shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors associated with multiple affiliations than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the observed rate warrants a closer look. A disproportionately high rate can be a symptom of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," where researchers leverage multiple institutional names to maximize perceived impact. This pattern calls for a review to ensure that all declared affiliations correspond to substantive and transparent collaborative work.
With a Z-score of -0.569, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of retracted publications, positioning it favorably against the national Z-score of -0.050. This low-profile consistency indicates that the university's robust quality control mechanisms are in harmony with, and even exceed, the national standard. The virtual absence of risk signals in this area is a positive sign of responsible supervision and scientific rigor. It suggests that the institution's pre-publication review processes are effective, preventing the types of unintentional errors or potential malpractice that often lead to retractions, thereby reinforcing its commitment to a culture of integrity.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.766, a figure that reflects a state of preventive isolation from the risk dynamics observed nationally, where the average Z-score is 0.045. This result is highly positive, indicating that the university does not replicate the trend of institutional self-citation prevalent in its environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's extremely low rate demonstrates a strong orientation toward external validation and global scientific dialogue, successfully avoiding the creation of 'echo chambers'. This practice confirms that the institution's academic influence is built on broad community recognition rather than being inflated by internal citation dynamics.
The university's Z-score of 2.433 for output in discontinued journals marks a moderate deviation and a point of concern, especially when compared to the low-risk national average of -0.024. This indicates that the institution is more exposed to this particular risk than its peers. Publishing in journals that cease operation, often due to a failure to meet ethical or quality standards, constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This pattern exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests that a significant portion of its scientific production may be channeled through predatory or low-quality media, highlighting an urgent need for enhanced information literacy among its researchers.
With a Z-score of -1.228, the institution maintains a very low rate of hyper-authored publications, a profile that is even more conservative than the national average of -0.721. This low-profile consistency demonstrates a commendable alignment with standards of accountable authorship. The absence of risk signals suggests that the institution effectively distinguishes between necessary large-scale collaboration and practices of author list inflation. This control over authorship patterns reinforces transparency and individual accountability, steering clear of 'honorary' or political authorship practices that can dilute the meaning of a scientific contribution.
The institution shows a Z-score of -3.772, indicating a total operational silence on this risk indicator, a result that is significantly stronger than the already very low national average of -0.809. A negative score is a sign of scientific strength, and this exceptionally low value suggests that the research led by the institution's own authors has a substantially higher impact than its overall collaborative output. This demonstrates a remarkable level of internal capacity and intellectual leadership, confirming that its scientific prestige is structural and generated from within, rather than being dependent on external partners where it does not exercise leadership.
The university's Z-score of -1.413 indicates a state of preventive isolation from a risk that is more pronounced at the national level, where the average Z-score is 0.425. This result shows that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics of hyperprolificacy observed in its environment. By maintaining a low rate of authors with extreme publication volumes, the university signals a healthy institutional balance between quantity and quality. This approach mitigates the risks of coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, reinforcing a culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of metrics.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates a very low reliance on its own journals for publication, a practice that aligns well with the national standard (Z-score of -0.010). This low-profile consistency is a positive indicator of the university's commitment to external validation. By favoring publication in independent, external journals, the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This strategy ensures its scientific production undergoes standard competitive peer review, which enhances its global visibility and credibility, rather than using internal channels that might be perceived as 'fast tracks' for publication.
The institution's Z-score of -1.186 signifies a total operational silence regarding redundant publications, performing even better than the low-risk national average of -0.515. This exceptionally low value is a strong indicator of a research culture that prioritizes substance over volume. It suggests that the university's authors focus on producing coherent, significant studies rather than engaging in 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a single study into multiple minimal publications. This commitment to presenting complete research not only strengthens the scientific record but also shows respect for the academic review system.
