Leshan Normal University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Leshan Normal University demonstrates a global integrity profile with a low overall risk score of 0.064, indicating a generally robust research environment. The institution exhibits significant strengths in governance, particularly with very low-risk signals in hyper-authored output, hyperprolific authors, and publication in institutional journals, suggesting effective control over authorship and internal dissemination practices. However, this solid foundation is contrasted by critical vulnerabilities, most notably a significant risk of redundant output (salami slicing), which is a critical anomaly compared to the national context. Additional areas of concern include moderate risks in retracted publications and output in discontinued journals. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's thematic strengths are concentrated in areas such as Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, and Environmental Science. The critical risk in publication integrity directly challenges the pursuit of excellence and social responsibility inherent in any academic mission, as it can undermine the credibility of these high-performing research areas. It is recommended that the institution leverage its clear governance strengths to implement a focused review of its publication strategies, ensuring that its operational integrity fully aligns with its demonstrated scientific potential.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution registers a Z-score of -0.166, a value that indicates a more prudent profile compared to the national average of -0.062. This suggests that the university manages its affiliation processes with slightly more rigor than the national standard. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this controlled rate indicates that the institution is not exhibiting patterns that could signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” maintaining a clear and conservative approach to academic collaboration.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 0.061, the institution shows a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.050. This difference suggests a greater sensitivity to risk factors than its national peers, warranting a review. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the norm alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This Z-score suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be facing challenges, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to prevent systemic failures.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university's Z-score of -0.713 is notably lower than the national average of 0.045, demonstrating strong institutional resilience. This performance indicates that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks of academic endogamy observed elsewhere in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, by maintaining a low rate, the institution avoids signals of concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers,' ensuring its work is validated by the broader scientific community and its academic influence is not oversized by internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 0.809 represents a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.024, indicating a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. This constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. A high Z-score indicates that a significant portion of scientific production may be channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need for enhanced information literacy among researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publication practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.209, well below the national average of -0.721, the institution demonstrates low-profile consistency in its authorship practices. The complete absence of risk signals in this area aligns with, and even improves upon, the national standard. This indicates that, outside of disciplines where extensive author lists are legitimate, the university is effectively avoiding patterns of author list inflation. This responsible approach reinforces individual accountability and transparency, distinguishing its collaborative work from questionable 'honorary' or political authorship practices.

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

The institution presents a Z-score of -0.053, which marks a slight divergence from the national context, where the average is -0.809. This indicates the emergence of risk signals that are not prevalent in the rest of the country. A positive gap can suggest that scientific prestige is dependent on external partners rather than being structurally generated from within. The university's score, while low, points toward a potential sustainability risk, inviting reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The university's Z-score of -1.413 signals a state of preventive isolation from a risk that is moderately present at the national level (Z-score of 0.425). This result is highly positive, showing that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. By effectively curbing extreme individual publication volumes, the university avoids potential imbalances between quantity and quality. This demonstrates strong governance that discourages practices such as coercive authorship or 'salami slicing,' thereby prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of productivity metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, significantly below the national average of -0.010, the institution shows a low-profile consistency and an absence of risk signals that aligns with the national standard. This indicates a healthy and limited reliance on its own publication channels. In-house journals can be valuable for local dissemination, but by avoiding excessive dependence on them, the university successfully mitigates conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, enhancing its global visibility and competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of 3.344 represents a critical anomaly, positioning it as an absolute outlier in a national environment that is healthy in this regard (country Z-score of -0.515). This severe discrepancy makes an audit of publication processes urgent. A high value in this indicator alerts to the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, a behavior known as 'salami slicing.' The massive and recurring bibliographic overlap suggested by this score distorts available scientific evidence, overburdens the review system, and prioritizes volume over the generation of significant new knowledge, requiring immediate and decisive intervention.