| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.781 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.503 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.611 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.019 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.931 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.290 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.276 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.982 | -0.515 |
Dali University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.311 indicating performance that is generally well-controlled and slightly exceeds the baseline standard. The institution's primary strengths lie in its meticulous management of authorial practices and publication quality, demonstrating exceptionally low risk in areas such as Retracted Output, Hyperprolific Authors, and Redundant Output. These results suggest a deeply embedded culture of individual accountability and rigorous oversight. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a medium-risk exposure to Multiple Affiliations and Institutional Self-Citation, which are notably higher than national averages and could suggest vulnerabilities related to institutional credit management and academic insularity. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas include Veterinary, Mathematics, Chemistry, and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, providing a solid foundation of recognized research. To fully realize its mission of being "well acknowledged in South and Southeast Asian countries," it is crucial to address the identified risks. An over-reliance on internal validation (Self-Citation) and affiliation patterns that could be perceived as strategic could undermine the external credibility essential for international recognition. By focusing on enhancing external validation and ensuring transparent collaborative frameworks, Dali University can leverage its core integrity strengths to build a sustainable and globally respected academic reputation.
The institution exhibits a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers, with a Z-score of 0.781 compared to the country's average of -0.062. This moderate deviation suggests that the university's affiliation patterns are more pronounced than the norm. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this elevated rate warrants a strategic review to ensure that all declared affiliations correspond to substantive collaborations rather than attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” thereby safeguarding the university's reputational integrity.
Dali University demonstrates excellent control in this area, with a near-total absence of risk signals that aligns perfectly with the low-risk national standard. The institutional Z-score of -0.503, compared to the national score of -0.050, indicates that its quality control mechanisms are exceptionally effective. This low-profile consistency suggests that processes for responsible supervision and the honest correction of errors are well-established, reflecting a mature and reliable culture of scientific integrity where potential issues are addressed long before they can lead to retractions.
The institution shows a high exposure to this risk, indicating it is more prone to insular citation practices than its environment. With a Z-score of 0.611, significantly above the national average of 0.045, there is a clear signal of potential academic 'echo chambers.' While a certain level of self-citation is natural, this disproportionately high rate warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than validated by sufficient external scrutiny from the global scientific community.
The institution's performance in this area reflects statistical normality, with a risk level that is as expected for its context and size. Its Z-score of -0.019 is closely aligned with the national average of -0.024, indicating no unusual activity or systemic vulnerability. This suggests that researchers are, on the whole, exercising appropriate due diligence in selecting reputable dissemination channels and are not disproportionately exposed to predatory or low-quality publishing practices.
The university maintains a prudent profile in managing authorship, demonstrating more rigor than the national standard. Its Z-score of -0.931 is notably lower than the country's average of -0.721, which points to a well-controlled environment. This conservative approach effectively mitigates the risk of author list inflation outside of legitimate 'Big Science' contexts, ensuring that authorship reflects meaningful contribution and that individual accountability remains transparent.
The institution shows a slight divergence from the national trend, with early signals of a risk that is not prevalent across the country. While the national context shows a very low gap (Z-score -0.809), the institution's score of -0.290 indicates a wider-than-average disparity. This suggests a potential sustainability risk where a portion of the university's scientific prestige may be dependent on collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership, inviting reflection on strategies to bolster its own structural research capacity.
Dali University demonstrates a remarkable preventive isolation from the risk dynamics observed at a national level. The institution's exceptionally low Z-score of -1.276 stands in stark contrast to the medium-risk national environment (Z-score 0.425). This clear disconnection indicates a strong institutional culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record and meaningful intellectual contribution, effectively discouraging practices where extreme publication volumes could compromise research quality or authorship ethics.
The institution’s practices align with the low-risk national standard, showing a near-absence of signals related to academic endogamy. The institutional Z-score of -0.268, compared to the national score of -0.010, confirms that there is no excessive dependence on in-house journals. This approach successfully mitigates potential conflicts of interest and ensures that its scientific production is predominantly validated through independent external peer review, which is essential for building global visibility and credibility.
In this indicator, the institution's performance is exemplary, showing a total operational silence with an absence of risk signals that is even more pronounced than the national average. The Z-score of -0.982, significantly below the country's -0.515, reflects a robust commitment to publishing substantive work. This demonstrates a culture that prioritizes the generation of significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of productivity metrics through the practice of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing'.
