| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.545 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.361 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.106 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.685 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.200 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.860 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.756 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.495 | -0.515 |
Chongqing University of Education demonstrates a solid overall performance with a score of 0.466, reflecting a robust foundation in scientific integrity alongside specific areas requiring strategic attention. The institution exhibits significant strengths in maintaining research autonomy and quality, with very low risk signals in institutional self-citation, hyper-authorship, redundant output, and publication in its own journals. These strengths are particularly relevant given the university's outstanding academic positioning, as evidenced by SCImago Institutions Rankings data, which places it in the top 10 in China for Agricultural and Biological Sciences, and with strong national rankings in Chemistry, Environmental Science, and Computer Science. However, a cluster of medium-risk indicators, including multiple affiliations, retracted output, and publication in discontinued journals, presents a challenge. While the institutional mission was not available for direct comparison, these risk factors could potentially undermine universal academic values of excellence and social responsibility by creating reputational vulnerabilities. By focusing on mitigating these specific risks, the university can better protect its notable academic achievements and ensure its operational practices fully align with its clear thematic leadership.
The institution presents a Z-score of 1.545, while the national average is -0.062. This score represents a moderate deviation from the national standard, suggesting the university shows a greater sensitivity to this particular risk factor than its peers. This pattern highlights a potential over-reliance on multiple affiliations. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, a rate significantly higher than the country's baseline can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping.” This warrants a review to ensure that all declared affiliations correspond to substantive collaborations and are not primarily used to artificially boost institutional metrics.
The institution's Z-score for retracted output is 0.361, which contrasts with the national average of -0.050. This difference indicates a moderate deviation, suggesting the university is more exposed to the factors leading to retractions than the national trend. Retractions are complex events, but a rate notably above the norm suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be facing systemic challenges. This vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture could point to recurring methodological issues or a lack of rigorous supervision, requiring immediate qualitative verification by management to safeguard its scientific reputation.
With a Z-score of -1.106 compared to the national average of 0.045, the institution demonstrates a preventive isolation from the risk dynamics observed in its environment. This very low rate of institutional self-citation is a positive indicator of research openness. It suggests that the university's work is validated through broad external scrutiny rather than within an internal 'echo chamber.' This practice avoids the risk of endogamous impact inflation and confirms that the institution's academic influence is driven by recognition from the global community, not by internal citation dynamics.
The institution has a Z-score of 1.685 in this indicator, significantly higher than the national average of -0.024. This value signals a moderate deviation from the country's standard, indicating a greater institutional susceptibility to publishing in problematic venues. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. It suggests that a portion of the university's 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 for improved information literacy to avoid predatory practices.
The institution's Z-score of -1.200 is well below the national average of -0.721, indicating a prudent profile that manages its processes with more rigor than the national standard. This very low rate of hyper-authored output outside of "Big Science" contexts is a strong sign of good academic practice. It suggests the institution effectively avoids the risks of author list inflation and honorary authorships, thereby promoting clear individual accountability and transparency in its research contributions.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.860, which is even lower than the already low national average of -0.809. This signifies a state of total operational silence regarding this risk, with performance exceeding the national standard. A negative or very low gap indicates that the impact of research led by the institution is on par with or exceeds the impact of its collaborative work. This is a strong sign of scientific maturity and sustainability, demonstrating that the university's prestige is built on genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, rather than being dependent on external partners.
The institution's Z-score of 0.756 is higher than the national average of 0.425, and both are at a medium-risk level. This indicates high exposure, suggesting the center is more prone to showing alert signals in this area than its environment average. While high productivity can reflect leadership, extreme individual publication volumes challenge the perceived limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution operates below the national average of -0.010. This reflects a prudent profile, where the university manages its publication channels with more rigor than the national standard. By minimizing its reliance on in-house journals, the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest and the risks of academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which strengthens its global visibility and confirms that its research is validated through standard competitive processes rather than internal 'fast tracks'.
The institution's Z-score of -0.495 is nearly identical to the national average of -0.515. This demonstrates integrity synchrony, a total alignment with a national environment of maximum scientific security in this area. The very low rate of redundant output indicates that the university's researchers are not engaging in 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a single study into multiple minimal publications to artificially inflate productivity. This commitment to publishing complete, significant work upholds the integrity of the scientific evidence base and respects the academic review system.
