Longyan University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Longyan University demonstrates a solid overall performance in scientific integrity, with a global risk score of -0.330 indicating a predominantly healthy research environment. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptional control over practices that could compromise the quality and originality of its output, showing very low risk in Retracted Output, Institutional Self-Citation, Hyperprolific Authorship, and publication in its own journals. In several of these areas, the university operates with significantly more rigor than the national average, effectively isolating itself from systemic vulnerabilities. This robust foundation supports its notable research strengths, particularly in Veterinary, Earth and Planetary Sciences, Environmental Science, and Chemistry, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings. However, this profile of integrity is challenged by two specific areas of concern: a medium risk level in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and, more critically, in the Rate of Redundant Output (Salami Slicing), where the university presents a significant anomaly compared to the national context. These vulnerabilities, if unaddressed, could undermine the credibility of its academic achievements and contradict the principles of excellence and social responsibility inherent in any institutional mission. It is therefore recommended that the university leverage its clear strengths in quality control to develop targeted strategies that mitigate these specific risks, ensuring its research practices fully align with its scientific ambitions.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of 1.428, which contrasts with the national average of -0.062. This moderate deviation indicates that the university shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors associated with affiliation practices than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the notable difference from the national standard suggests that a portion of this activity could be driven by strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping." This pattern warrants a review to ensure that all declared affiliations correspond to substantive and transparent collaborations, maintaining the integrity of the institution's academic footprint.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.691, well below the national average of -0.050, the institution demonstrates an excellent record in this area. This low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with a low-risk national standard, points to highly effective quality control and supervision mechanisms prior to publication. This result suggests that the institutional culture promotes methodological rigor and responsible research conduct, successfully preventing the types of errors or malpractice that could lead to retractions and safeguarding its scientific reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of -0.971 is exceptionally low, particularly when compared to the national average of 0.045, which indicates a medium level of risk. This demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's very low rate signals a strong integration into the global scientific community, avoiding the "echo chambers" that can arise from endogamous validation. This result confirms that the institution's academic influence is built on broad external recognition rather than being inflated by internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.136 is slightly lower than the national average of -0.024, reflecting a prudent profile in its publication strategy. This indicates that the university manages its processes with more rigor than the national standard, effectively guiding its researchers away from dissemination channels that fail to meet international quality standards. By maintaining a low rate of publication in such journals, the institution protects its resources and reputation from the risks associated with predatory or low-quality publishing practices, demonstrating strong due diligence.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.993, the institution shows a more controlled approach to authorship than the national average of -0.721. This prudent profile suggests that the university manages its authorship practices with greater rigor than the national standard. While extensive author lists are legitimate in "Big Science," this lower-than-average score indicates a healthy institutional norm that likely distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and the risk of "honorary" authorship. This helps ensure that author lists accurately reflect meaningful contributions, reinforcing individual accountability and transparency.

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

The institution's Z-score of -0.763 represents a slight divergence from the national Z-score of -0.809. While both scores are low, the university shows minor signals of risk activity that are less apparent in the rest of the country. This small gap suggests a potential, albeit minimal, sustainability risk where the institution's scientific prestige may be partially dependent on external partners rather than being fully structural. It invites a gentle reflection on whether all excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity, ensuring that the institution continues to build and showcase its own intellectual leadership in collaborations.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.413, a figure that stands in stark contrast to the national average of 0.425. This is a clear example of preventive isolation, where the university actively avoids the risk dynamics related to extreme publication volumes that are more prevalent nationally. This very low score indicates a strong institutional culture that prioritizes quality over sheer quantity, effectively discouraging practices such as coercive authorship or data fragmentation. By maintaining a healthy balance, the university upholds the integrity of its scientific record and ensures that authorship is tied to meaningful intellectual contributions.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, which is significantly lower than the national average of -0.010, the institution demonstrates low-profile consistency in its publication choices. The absence of risk signals in this area aligns with the national standard, confirming a commitment to external validation. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the university mitigates potential conflicts of interest and ensures its scientific production undergoes independent peer review. This practice enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, steering clear of academic endogamy.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of 1.318 constitutes a monitoring alert, as it is an unusual risk level for the national standard, where the average is -0.515. This significant discrepancy indicates that the practice of fragmenting studies into minimal publishable units may be occurring at a rate that is highly atypical for its environment. Such a high value for bibliographic overlap alerts to the risk of "salami slicing," a practice that artificially inflates productivity metrics at the expense of scientific coherence. This finding distorts the available evidence and overburdens the review system, suggesting an urgent need to review the causes and internal incentives that may be driving this behavior.