| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.227 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.118 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.595 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
2.486 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.250 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.193 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.111 | -0.515 |
Henan University of Animal Husbandry and Economy presents a robust scientific integrity profile, marked by significant strengths in research autonomy and accountability, alongside specific, manageable areas for strategic improvement. With an overall score of 0.339, the institution demonstrates a commendable performance, particularly excelling with very low risk in Institutional Self-Citation, Hyper-Authored Output, Hyperprolific Authors, and Output in Institutional Journals. These results signal a culture of external validation and responsible authorship. However, moderate risk levels in areas such as Output in Discontinued Journals, the Gap in Impact Leadership, and Redundant Output warrant attention. These indicators align with the institution's thematic strengths, as evidenced by its outstanding SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly in Veterinary (ranked 29th in China), and strong national positions in Social Sciences, Mathematics, and Agricultural and Biological Sciences. To fully align with a mission of academic excellence and social responsibility, addressing the identified risks is crucial, as practices like publishing in low-quality journals or fragmenting research could undermine the credibility of its high-impact work. A focused effort on enhancing publication channel selection and promoting research leadership will solidify its reputation as a leading institution committed to both high-impact science and unimpeachable integrity.
The institution's Z-score of 1.227 for this indicator shows a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.062. This suggests that the university is more sensitive than its national peers to practices involving multiple institutional affiliations. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the higher rate here warrants a review. It is important to ensure that this trend reflects genuine, productive collaboration rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” thereby safeguarding the transparency of institutional contributions.
With a Z-score of -0.118, the institution demonstrates a prudent profile regarding retracted publications, performing slightly better than the national standard (-0.050). This low value suggests that the university's quality control and supervision mechanisms are functioning effectively, managing to keep the rate of serious errors below the national average. Retractions can sometimes signify responsible error correction, and this institution's performance indicates a rigorous approach to research integrity that minimizes the need for such post-publication measures.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.595, a figure that signals an exceptionally low rate of institutional self-citation, especially when compared to the national average of 0.045. This result indicates a strong preventive isolation from the risk dynamics observed elsewhere in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this institution’s very low rate is a powerful sign of scientific openness, suggesting its work is validated externally rather than within an 'echo chamber.' This performance effectively counters the risk of endogamous impact inflation and confirms that the institution's academic influence is driven by broad recognition from the global community.
The Z-score of 2.486 for output in discontinued journals marks a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.024, indicating a greater institutional sensitivity to this risk factor. This elevated rate constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It suggests that a significant portion of the university's scientific production may be channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and points to an urgent need to enhance information literacy among researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publications.
The institution's Z-score of -1.250 is well below the national average of -0.721, demonstrating low-profile consistency in this area. The complete absence of risk signals for hyper-authorship aligns with, and even improves upon, the national standard. This indicates that the institution's collaborative practices are well-regulated, effectively distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and potential author list inflation. This result reinforces a culture of transparency and clear individual accountability in research contributions.
A monitoring alert is triggered by the institution's Z-score of 1.193 in this indicator, a highly unusual level when contrasted with the national average of -0.809. This wide positive gap—where overall impact is significantly higher than the impact of research led by the institution—signals a potential sustainability risk. It suggests that the institution's scientific prestige may be heavily dependent on external partners and not fully reflective of its own structural capacity. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics are derived from genuine internal capabilities or from advantageous positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution shows a complete absence of risk related to hyperprolific authors, a stark contrast to the moderate risk level seen in the national context (0.425). This demonstrates a successful preventive isolation from national trends, suggesting a strong institutional culture that prioritizes research quality over sheer publication volume. By avoiding extreme individual publication rates, the university mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thereby upholding the integrity of its scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.010, indicating a consistent and low-risk profile in this area. This absence of risk signals aligns with the national standard and suggests a healthy approach to scholarly communication. By not relying excessively on its own journals, the university avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which enhances its global visibility and confirms its commitment to competitive, merit-based validation.
The institution's Z-score of 0.111 represents a monitoring alert, as this moderate risk level is unusual when compared to the very low-risk national standard of -0.515. This discrepancy requires a review of the underlying causes. A higher-than-average rate of bibliographic overlap between publications can be an indicator of 'salami slicing,' the practice of dividing a single study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. Such a practice not only distorts the scientific evidence base but also overburdens the peer review system, prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
