| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
3.251 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
2.249 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.071 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.163 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.174 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.317 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.601 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.014 | -0.515 |
Hezhou University presents a complex scientific integrity profile, marked by a significant contrast between areas of commendable control and specific, critical vulnerabilities. With an overall risk score of 1.017, the institution demonstrates notable strengths in avoiding academic endogamy, as evidenced by very low rates of institutional self-citation and publication in its own journals. However, this positive foundation is severely undermined by significant risk levels in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and the Rate of Retracted Output, which are atypical for the national context and demand immediate strategic intervention. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's key research strengths lie in Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology; Chemistry; and Energy. The identified integrity risks, particularly those related to retractions and affiliation practices, directly threaten to devalue these academic achievements and contradict the principles of excellence and social responsibility inherent to any university's mission. To secure its reputation and the impact of its research, it is imperative for the institution to leverage its robust internal validation culture to implement stringent quality control and affiliation policies, ensuring that its operational practices align with its scientific ambitions.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 3.251, a figure that represents a severe discrepancy when compared to the national average of -0.062. This result indicates that the university's activity in this area is highly atypical and warrants a deep integrity assessment. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, such a disproportionately high rate signals a significant risk of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping.” The stark contrast with the low-risk national environment suggests that this is an isolated institutional issue rather than a systemic trend, making an internal review of affiliation policies and researcher practices an urgent priority to safeguard institutional reputation.
With a Z-score of 2.249 against a national average of -0.050, the institution shows a severe and atypical concentration of retracted publications. This significant deviation from the national norm suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. A rate this much higher than the country's average is a critical alert to a vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. It points towards possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that goes beyond isolated, honest corrections and requires immediate qualitative verification by management to prevent further damage to its scientific credibility.
The institution demonstrates a Z-score of -1.071, which is a very positive signal, especially when contrasted with the national average of 0.045, indicating a medium-level risk nationwide. This result reflects a form of preventive isolation, where the university successfully avoids the risk dynamics observed in its broader environment. This very low rate indicates that the institution is not operating within a scientific 'echo chamber' and is effectively preventing endogamous impact inflation. Instead, its academic influence appears to be validated through external scrutiny from the global community, a clear strength in its integrity profile.
The institution's Z-score of 1.163 places it in a medium-risk category, showing a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.024. This suggests the university has a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than 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 pattern indicates that a portion of its scientific output is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and highlighting an urgent need to improve information literacy among its researchers to avoid predatory practices.
With a Z-score of -1.174, the institution maintains a very low-risk profile, which is consistent with and even stronger than the low-risk national average of -0.721. This low-profile consistency demonstrates an absence of risk signals related to the inflation of author lists. The data suggests that authorship practices at the institution are well-governed, preserving individual accountability and transparency in line with national standards and avoiding questionable practices like 'honorary' or political authorship.
The institution's Z-score of -0.317 indicates a low level of risk, yet it represents a slight divergence from the national average of -0.809, where this risk is virtually non-existent. This subtle difference suggests that the institution shows early signals of risk activity not commonly seen in the rest of the country. It points to a minor dependency on external partners for achieving impact, where its scientific prestige may be more reliant on collaborations than on research where it exercises full intellectual leadership. This finding invites a strategic reflection on strengthening internal capacity to ensure its excellence is structural and sustainable.
The institution's Z-score of -0.601 reflects a low-risk profile, a positive outcome that demonstrates institutional resilience, particularly when compared to the national average of 0.425, which falls into the medium-risk category. This suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks related to hyperprolificity that are present in the country. By maintaining this low rate, the institution successfully avoids potential imbalances between quantity and quality, and steers clear of risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution has a very low-risk profile, aligning perfectly with the low-risk national standard (Z-score of -0.010). This low-profile consistency is a sign of robust scientific practice. It indicates that the university avoids the potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy that can arise from excessive dependence on in-house journals. By favoring external publication channels, the institution ensures its research undergoes independent peer review, enhancing its global visibility and competitive validation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.014, while indicating a low level of risk, marks a slight divergence from the national average of -0.515, which is in the very low-risk category. This suggests the center is beginning to show signals of risk activity that are not apparent in the rest of the country. This minor presence of bibliographic overlap could be an early indicator of 'salami slicing,' where studies are fragmented to inflate productivity. While not yet a major issue, it warrants attention to ensure the institutional culture continues to prioritize the publication of significant new knowledge over sheer volume.
