| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
2.216 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.353 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.410 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
2.535 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.401 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.948 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
2.418 | -0.515 |
Suqian University presents a mixed scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of 0.574 that reflects a combination of significant strengths and areas requiring strategic attention. The institution demonstrates commendable control over authorship practices, evidenced by very low risk in hyper-authored output and hyperprolific authors, and maintains a prudent approach to retractions and the use of institutional journals. These strengths suggest a solid foundation in individual researcher ethics. However, this is contrasted by medium-risk indicators related to publication and citation strategies, including a high rate of output in discontinued journals, elevated institutional self-citation, and potential signs of redundant publication ('salami slicing'). These weaknesses could undermine the university's pursuit of excellence and global recognition, particularly in its strongest thematic areas as identified by SCImago Institutions Rankings data: Business, Management and Accounting; Physics and Astronomy; Agricultural and Biological Sciences; and Mathematics. As the institutional mission was not specified, it is crucial to note that such risks inherently conflict with any commitment to research excellence, ethical conduct, and social responsibility by prioritizing metrics over substantive scientific contribution. A focused effort to align publication incentives with best practices will be essential for building a sustainable and genuinely impactful research reputation.
With a Z-score of 2.216, significantly above the national average of -0.062, the institution exhibits a moderate deviation from the national norm, suggesting a greater sensitivity to the risk factors associated with multiple affiliations. 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 divergence from the national trend warrants a review of affiliation policies to ensure they foster genuine collaboration and accurately reflect the institution's contributions.
The institution demonstrates a prudent profile in its management of post-publication corrections, with a Z-score of -0.353 that is notably lower than the national average of -0.050. This indicates that its quality control and supervision processes are managed with more rigor than the national standard. Retractions are complex events, but this low rate suggests that the mechanisms for ensuring methodological soundness and ethical oversight prior to publication are functioning effectively, reflecting a healthy and responsible culture of scientific integrity.
The institution's Z-score of 0.410 is considerably higher than the national average of 0.045, indicating a high exposure to the risks associated with this practice. This suggests the university is more prone to showing alert signals in this area than its peers. While a certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of research lines, this disproportionately high rate can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' It warns of the potential for endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than validated by the broader global research community.
The institution's Z-score of 2.535 marks a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.024, revealing a greater sensitivity to the risks of publishing in questionable venues. This high proportion of output in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It indicates that a significant portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution maintains a very low Z-score of -1.401, well below the national average of -0.721, demonstrating low-profile consistency in its authorship patterns. This absence of risk signals aligns with, and even improves upon, the national standard. It suggests that, across disciplines, authorship lists are managed appropriately, effectively avoiding the risks of author list inflation or the dilution of individual accountability and ensuring that credit is assigned transparently and responsibly.
A monitoring alert is triggered by the institution's Z-score of 0.948, an unusually high-risk level that stands in stark contrast to the national standard of -0.809. This very wide positive gap—where the institution's overall impact is significantly higher than the impact of the research it leads—signals a potential sustainability risk. This high value suggests that its scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, not structural. It invites reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The institution demonstrates a state of preventive isolation from national trends, with an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.413 compared to the medium-risk national average of 0.425. This positive finding indicates that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics concerning hyperprolific authorship observed elsewhere in the country. The data suggests a healthy balance between productivity and quality, effectively mitigating risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without meaningful intellectual contribution, thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, which is below the national average of -0.010, the institution shows low-profile consistency regarding its use of in-house journals. The absence of risk signals in this area aligns with the national standard, indicating that the university is not overly dependent on its own publication channels. This practice helps avoid potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring that its research is validated through independent external peer review and positioned for greater global visibility.
A monitoring alert is warranted due to the institution's Z-score of 2.418, an unusually high-risk level when compared to the very low-risk national standard of -0.515. This high value, which points to massive and recurring bibliographic overlap between simultaneous publications, alerts to the potential practice of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' This approach, which divides a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, can distort the scientific evidence base and suggests a need to review institutional incentives to ensure they prioritize significant new knowledge over sheer publication volume.
