Xianyang Normal University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Xianyang Normal University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in its overall risk score of 0.249. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining low levels of academic endogamy and authorship-related risks, particularly in Institutional Self-Citation, Hyper-Authored Output, Hyperprolific Authors, and Output in Institutional Journals. These areas of excellence suggest strong internal governance and an alignment with global best practices. However, this positive outlook is contrasted by medium-risk signals in four key areas: Rate of Multiple Affiliations, Rate of Retracted Output, Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, and Rate of Redundant Output. These vulnerabilities require strategic attention. Thematically, the university shows notable strengths in Chemistry, Computer Science, and Mathematics, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. As the institution's mission statement was not available for this analysis, it is crucial to articulate one that explicitly champions values of excellence and ethical responsibility. The identified risks, especially publishing in discontinued journals and redundant output, directly challenge these core academic principles by potentially compromising research quality and reputation. A focused effort to mitigate these specific risks will not only enhance the university's integrity profile but also solidify the foundation upon which its thematic strengths and future strategic goals are built.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of 0.617 for this indicator contrasts with the national average of -0.062. This moderate deviation suggests the university is more sensitive to this risk factor than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the elevated rate here warrants a closer look. It signals a potential strategic use of affiliations to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," a practice that appears less common across the country and could affect the transparency of institutional contributions.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 0.380, the institution shows a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.050. This indicates that the university's rate of retractions is higher than the national trend, suggesting that its pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be less effective than those of its peers. A rate significantly higher than the average alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. Beyond isolated, honest corrections, this pattern could indicate recurring methodological issues or a lack of rigorous supervision that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to safeguard scientific quality.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution exhibits an exceptionally strong performance with a Z-score of -1.207, in stark contrast to the national average of 0.045, which indicates a medium-level risk. This demonstrates a clear preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics prevalent in its environment. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, the national context points toward a risk of creating 'echo chambers'. Xianyang Normal University’s very low rate, however, signals robust integration with the global scientific community and a reliance on external validation, effectively avoiding any risk of endogamous impact inflation and confirming its academic influence is recognized externally.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 1.789 represents a significant area of concern, deviating sharply from the low-risk national average of -0.024. This result indicates that the university's researchers are channeling their work into discontinued journals more frequently than their national counterparts. Such a high proportion of output in these venues constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It suggests a systemic vulnerability that exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and indicates an urgent need for enhanced information literacy to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publishing practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.177, the institution maintains a very low-risk profile that is consistent with, and even stronger than, the national average of -0.721. This absence of risk signals aligns perfectly with the national standard for responsible authorship. It indicates that the university's authorship practices are transparent and accountable, successfully distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration in "Big Science" contexts and potentially problematic 'honorary' or political authorship. This reflects a healthy research culture that values individual accountability.

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

The institution registers a Z-score of -0.291, showing a slight divergence from the national average of -0.809, where this risk is virtually non-existent. This low-level signal suggests a minor reliance on external partners for generating impact, a dynamic not widely observed across the country. While not a significant concern, it indicates that the institution's scientific prestige may be partially dependent on collaborations where it does not exercise full intellectual leadership. This invites a strategic reflection on how to further build internal capacity to ensure that its high-impact research is fully structural, sustainable, and endogenously driven.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution demonstrates an outstandingly low risk with a Z-score of -1.413, effectively isolating itself from the national trend, where a Z-score of 0.425 indicates a medium-level risk. This result shows that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. The absence of hyperprolific authors suggests a strong institutional culture that prioritizes quality and meaningful intellectual contribution over sheer publication volume. This stands in contrast to the national context and signals an environment free from coercive authorship or other practices that compromise the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is firmly in the very low-risk category, aligning well with the low-risk national average of -0.010. This low-profile consistency demonstrates that the university avoids over-reliance on its own publication channels. This practice mitigates the risk of academic endogamy and potential conflicts of interest, ensuring that its scientific production consistently undergoes independent external peer review. By doing so, the institution secures global visibility and competitive validation for its research, rather than using internal journals as potential 'fast tracks' to inflate publication metrics.

Rate of Redundant Output

This indicator presents a monitoring alert, as the institution's Z-score of 0.354 (medium risk) is highly unusual compared to the national average of -0.515 (very low risk). This significant discrepancy requires a careful review of its underlying causes. The data suggests a potential institutional tendency toward 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This behavior, which is not a common risk in the national system, can distort the scientific evidence and overburdens the peer-review system, prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.