| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.818 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.418 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.487 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
2.791 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.288 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.225 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -0.515 |
Xinyang Agriculture and Forestry University demonstrates a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of 0.087. The institution exhibits exceptional strength across a wide range of indicators, with very low risk signals in areas such as retracted output, institutional self-citation, hyper-authorship, and redundant publications. This solid foundation is a testament to strong internal governance. However, two specific vulnerabilities require strategic attention: a significant rate of publication in discontinued journals and a moderately elevated rate of multiple affiliations. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university has established a notable presence in key thematic areas, including Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Environmental Science, and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology. The institution's mission to achieve "high level" learning is strongly supported by its overall low-risk profile, but is directly challenged by the high-risk practice of publishing in low-quality journals. Addressing this discrepancy is crucial to ensure that all institutional practices align with its aspirations for excellence and integrity. By focusing on enhancing publication channel due diligence and clarifying affiliation policies, the university can build upon its considerable strengths to create a truly exemplary research environment.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.818 in this indicator, which shows a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.062. This suggests that the university is more sensitive than its national peers to factors that encourage researchers to list multiple affiliations. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this divergence from the national trend warrants a review. An unusually high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," and understanding the specific drivers behind this pattern is key to ensuring that all affiliations reflect genuine and substantial collaboration.
With a Z-score of -0.418, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of retracted publications, performing even better than the national standard (-0.050). This low-profile consistency indicates that the university's quality control and supervision mechanisms are highly effective. Retractions can stem from honest errors or misconduct, and a rate significantly below the norm suggests that the institution's integrity culture and pre-publication review processes are robust, successfully preventing the systemic failures that can lead to the withdrawal of scientific work and protecting its academic reputation.
The institution's Z-score of -1.487 is remarkably low, especially when contrasted with the national average of 0.045. This result points to a dynamic of preventive isolation, where the university successfully avoids the trend of institutional self-citation prevalent in its environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but disproportionately high rates can signal scientific isolation or 'echo chambers'. This institution's very low score indicates that its academic influence is validated by the broader global community rather than through internal dynamics, demonstrating strong external engagement and a commitment to objective, externally scrutinized impact.
The institution's Z-score of 2.791 represents a severe discrepancy when compared to the low-risk national average of -0.024. This atypical and high-risk activity is a critical alert that requires an immediate and deep integrity assessment. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals indicates that a significant part of the university's scientific output is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and suggests an urgent need to implement stronger information literacy and due diligence policies to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publication channels.
The institution shows a Z-score of -1.288, which is considerably lower than the national average of -0.721. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals is even more pronounced than the national standard. Outside of "Big Science" disciplines where large author lists are common, a low score is a positive sign of healthy authorship practices. It suggests that the institution fosters an environment where individual accountability and transparency are valued, effectively avoiding the dilution of responsibility that can occur with author list inflation or the inclusion of 'honorary' authors.
With a Z-score of -1.225, the institution shows a total operational silence for this risk, performing even better than the already low national average of -0.809. A low or negative score in this indicator is highly favorable, as it signifies that the impact of research led by the institution's own authors is strong and not dependent on external partners. This result suggests that the university's scientific prestige is built upon genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, indicating a sustainable model for research excellence rather than a reliance on strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not lead.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, standing in stark contrast to the national average of 0.425. This signifies a clear case of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics related to hyperprolificacy observed elsewhere in the country. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This very low score indicates a healthy institutional balance between quantity and quality, discouraging practices such as coercive authorship or prioritizing metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is well below the national average of -0.010, indicating a low-profile consistency and an absence of risk signals in this area. This demonstrates that the university avoids excessive dependence on its in-house journals, a practice that can create conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. By channeling its research through external, independent peer-reviewed venues, the institution ensures its scientific production is validated against global standards, thereby enhancing its international visibility and credibility.
The institution's Z-score of -1.186 signals a total operational silence on this indicator, a result that is even stronger than the low-risk national average of -0.515. This exceptionally low value is a strong positive signal, indicating that the practice of fragmenting a single study into multiple 'minimal publishable units' to inflate productivity is not prevalent. It suggests a research culture that prioritizes the publication of complete, coherent studies that offer significant new knowledge, thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific evidence base and respecting the academic review system.
