| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.602 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.306 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.856 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.073 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.113 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.472 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.873 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.150 | -0.515 |
Yangtze Normal University presents a balanced integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.213 indicating performance aligned with the global average, characterized by significant strengths in internal controls but also specific areas requiring strategic attention. The institution demonstrates exceptional performance in managing institutional self-citation and publication in its own journals, suggesting a strong outward-looking research culture that avoids academic endogamy. Further strengths are evident in the prudent management of retracted output, hyper-authored publications, and hyperprolific authors, where the university outperforms national averages. However, this is contrasted by medium-risk signals in the rates of multiple affiliations, publication in discontinued journals, and a notable gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work where it holds leadership. These areas suggest a need to reinforce policies around affiliation ethics, journal selection, and the cultivation of endogenous research leadership. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's key thematic strengths lie in Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (ranked 177th in China), Environmental Science (183rd), and Agricultural and Biological Sciences (245th). While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, the identified risks could challenge any mission centered on achieving genuine scientific excellence and social responsibility, as they point toward strategies that may prioritize metric performance over the sustainable development of internal research capacity. A strategic focus on mitigating these specific vulnerabilities will be crucial for ensuring the university's long-term reputational integrity and the authentic growth of its scientific impact.
The institution's Z-score of 0.602 moderately deviates from the national average of -0.062, indicating a greater sensitivity to this risk factor compared to its national peers. This suggests that the university's researchers declare multiple affiliations at a rate higher than the country's norm. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” This pattern warrants a review to ensure that all declared affiliations are substantive and reflect genuine, active collaboration rather than a strategy focused on metric enhancement.
With a Z-score of -0.306, the university demonstrates a prudent profile in managing retracted publications, performing with more rigor than the national standard, which has a score of -0.050. This low value suggests that the institution's quality control and supervision mechanisms are effective. Retractions can be complex events, but a rate well below the average points to a healthy integrity culture and robust methodological oversight, minimizing the occurrence of errors or malpractice that could lead to such corrective actions.
The university shows a remarkable preventive isolation from risk dynamics prevalent in its national environment. Its Z-score of -0.856 is firmly in the 'very low' risk category, contrasting sharply with the country's medium-risk average of 0.045. This result indicates a strong culture of seeking external validation. While a certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of research lines, the institution successfully avoids the 'echo chambers' that can lead to endogamous impact inflation. This suggests that the university's academic influence is robustly validated by the global scientific community rather than being sustained by internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of 0.073 indicates a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.024, showing a greater propensity for this risk factor than its peers. This score constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It suggests that a portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and points to an urgent need for enhanced information literacy and guidance for researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publication venues.
The university maintains a prudent profile regarding hyper-authorship, with a Z-score of -1.113 that is significantly lower and more rigorous than the national standard of -0.721. This low rate indicates that the institution is not prone to author list inflation outside of disciplines where it is structurally necessary. The data suggests a healthy practice of attributing authorship, which reinforces individual accountability and transparency, effectively distinguishing legitimate massive collaboration from potentially 'honorary' or unjustified authorship practices.
This indicator presents a monitoring alert, as the university's risk level is highly unusual for the national standard and requires a review of its underlying causes. The institutional Z-score of 0.472 (medium risk) diverges critically from the country's very low-risk average of -0.809. This wide positive gap—where the institution's global impact is significantly higher than the impact of the research it leads—signals a potential sustainability risk. It suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, not structural. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether current excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The university demonstrates strong institutional resilience in this area, with a Z-score of -0.873 that indicates its control mechanisms effectively mitigate systemic risks observed at the national level (country score: 0.425). While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme publication volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The institution's very low score suggests it successfully avoids the risks associated with hyper-prolificacy, such as coercive authorship or 'salami slicing,' thereby promoting a healthy balance between quantity and quality and upholding the integrity of its scientific record.
The institution exhibits low-profile consistency, as its absence of risk signals in this area aligns with the national standard. With a Z-score of -0.268, well below the country average of -0.010, the university shows a very low dependence on its own journals for dissemination. This practice mitigates potential conflicts of interest and avoids the risk of academic endogamy, where production might bypass independent external peer review. By favoring external channels, the institution ensures its research undergoes standard competitive validation and enhances its global visibility.
In this indicator, the university shows a slight divergence from the national context. Its Z-score of -0.150, while in the low-risk category, is higher than the country's very low-risk average of -0.515. This suggests the presence of signals of risk activity that are not as apparent in the rest of the country. A higher rate of bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' a practice of dividing a study into minimal units to inflate productivity. While the current level is not critical, it warrants observation to ensure that the focus remains on publishing significant new knowledge rather than prioritizing volume.
