| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.738 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
2.061 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.692 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
3.681 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.278 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.425 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.071 | -0.515 |
Dalian Neusoft University of Information demonstrates a strong overall performance with a score of 0.946, indicating a solid foundation in scientific integrity, yet with critical areas requiring immediate strategic attention. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of Institutional Self-Citation, Hyper-Authored Output, and Hyperprolific Authors, suggesting robust internal governance that effectively prevents academic endogamy and authorship inflation, performing significantly better than the national average in these domains. These strengths are foundational to the university's notable rankings in key thematic areas such as Computer Science, Engineering, and Mathematics, as reported by SCImago Institutions Rankings. However, this positive profile is severely undermined by significant risks in the Rate of Retracted Output and the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, alongside a monitoring alert for Redundant Output. While a specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, these integrity risks directly challenge the universal academic values of excellence and credibility. The high incidence of retractions and publication in predatory journals threatens to devalue the institution's strong research output and compromise its reputation, creating a contradiction between its thematic excellence and its operational practices. A targeted intervention to enhance pre-publication quality control and educate researchers on selecting reputable publication venues is crucial to align the institution's scientific integrity with its academic ambitions, thereby ensuring its long-term reputational health and impact.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.738, while the national average is -0.062. This indicates a prudent profile, as the university manages its affiliation processes with more rigor than the national standard. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the institution's lower-than-average score suggests a well-controlled environment that effectively avoids strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” reflecting a conservative and transparent approach to academic partnerships.
The institution presents a Z-score of 2.061, in stark contrast to the national average of -0.050. This result signals a severe discrepancy, as the level of risk activity is highly atypical for the national context and requires a deep integrity assessment. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the global average, as suggested by this high Z-score, alerts to a critical vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management.
The institution presents a Z-score of -1.692, compared to a national average of 0.045. This demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, where the center successfully avoids the risk dynamics observed in its environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of established research lines. However, the institution's exceptionally low score indicates strong integration with the global scientific community, effectively avoiding the creation of 'echo chambers' or the risk of endogamous impact inflation. This suggests the institution's academic influence is validated by broad external scrutiny rather than being oversized by internal dynamics.
The institution presents a Z-score of 3.681, a figure that dramatically diverges from the national average of -0.024. This severe discrepancy indicates that the institution's risk activity in this area is atypical and warrants a deep integrity assessment. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. The high Z-score indicates that a significant portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that do 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 presents a Z-score of -1.278, while the national average is -0.721. This demonstrates low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with the national standard of low risk. The institution's very low score, even below the country's already low average, indicates that its authorship practices are well-calibrated. This serves as a positive signal that the institution effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and 'honorary' or political authorship practices, thereby maintaining individual accountability and transparency in its research output.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.425, whereas the national average is -0.809. This score points to a slight divergence from the national trend, showing signals of risk activity that are not as apparent in the rest of the country. A positive gap can signal a sustainability risk where prestige is dependent on external partners. In this case, the institution's score, while low, is higher than the national average, suggesting a minor but noticeable dependency on collaborations where it may not exercise full intellectual leadership. This invites a gentle reflection on strategies to bolster internal capacity and ensure that excellence metrics are a direct result of its own structural strengths.
The institution presents a Z-score of -1.413, in sharp contrast to the national average of 0.425. This result is a clear indicator of preventive isolation, as the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its national environment. While high productivity can be legitimate, the institution's very low score demonstrates a healthy balance between quantity and quality. It suggests an environment that successfully mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of metrics.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.268, compared to a national average of -0.010. This reflects a state of low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals is in line with the national standard. The institution's very low score indicates that it does not have an excessive dependence on its own journals, thus avoiding potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production largely undergoes independent external peer review, enhancing its global visibility and validating its research through standard competitive channels.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.071, which stands out against a national average of -0.515. This constitutes a monitoring alert, as this risk level is unusual for the national standard and requires a review of its causes. Massive and recurring bibliographic overlap between publications often indicates data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' The institution's score, while moderate, is significantly higher than its peers, alerting to a potential practice of dividing studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This behavior risks distorting the scientific evidence and overburdens the review system, suggesting a need to reinforce policies that prioritize significant new knowledge over publication volume.
