Guiyang University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Guiyang University presents a composite profile of scientific integrity, with an overall score of 0.560 reflecting a balance of commendable strengths and specific, high-priority areas for improvement. The institution demonstrates robust governance in key areas, showing very low risk in hyper-authorship, hyperprolific authors, and publication in institutional journals, alongside effective resilience against the national trend of high self-citation. These strengths suggest a solid foundation of responsible research practices. However, this is contrasted by a significant alert regarding the rate of retracted publications and medium-level risks in multiple affiliations, redundant output, and publication in discontinued journals. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's primary research strengths lie in Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics; Chemistry; Earth and Planetary Sciences; and Physics and Astronomy. The identified integrity risks, particularly those related to publication quality and ethics, could undermine the credibility of these core areas and challenge the universal academic mission of pursuing excellence and upholding social responsibility. By leveraging its demonstrated capacity for strong governance, the university has a clear opportunity to implement targeted interventions, enhancing its pre-publication review processes and reinforcing its commitment to unimpeachable scientific quality.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution exhibits a Z-score of 1.535, which represents a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.062. This suggests the university is more sensitive to risk factors related to author affiliations than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this elevated rate could signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping." The disparity with the low-risk national context indicates that this is an institutional-specific trend that warrants a review of affiliation policies to ensure they reflect genuine collaborative contributions rather than metric-driven incentives.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 1.366, the institution shows a severe discrepancy compared to the national average of -0.050. This atypical level of risk activity is a critical finding that requires a deep integrity assessment. Retractions are complex events, but a rate so significantly higher than the national norm suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This is not merely about correcting honest errors; it alerts to a profound vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that necessitates immediate qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of -0.204 is low, especially when contrasted with the medium-risk national average of 0.045. This demonstrates notable institutional resilience, as internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks of self-citation prevalent in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting ongoing research lines. However, by maintaining a low rate, the university avoids the "echo chambers" and endogamous impact inflation that can arise from excessive self-validation, ensuring its academic influence is validated by the broader global community rather than internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The university's Z-score of 0.965 indicates a moderate deviation from the national standard (-0.024), showing a greater institutional sensitivity to this risk factor. This finding constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. A high proportion of publications in such journals suggests that a significant portion of scientific output is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and points to an urgent need for enhanced information literacy among researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.335, the institution demonstrates an absence of risk signals that aligns with the low-risk national standard (-0.721), reflecting a low-profile consistency. This indicates that authorship practices at the institution are well-managed and transparent. The university successfully avoids the risk of author list inflation, which can dilute individual accountability. This result suggests a healthy research culture where authorship is awarded based on genuine contribution, distinguishing legitimate large-scale collaboration from questionable "honorary" authorship practices.

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

The institution's Z-score of -0.709 represents a slight divergence from the national context, where the risk is virtually non-existent (Z-score: -0.809). This indicates the emergence of minor risk signals at the institution that are not present elsewhere in the country. A wide positive gap can signal a sustainability risk where prestige is dependent on external partners rather than internal capacity. While the current level is low, this signal invites a proactive reflection on whether the institution's excellence metrics are a result of its own structural capabilities or strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.105 is very low, indicating a state of preventive isolation from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score: 0.425). This finding shows that the university does not replicate the risk behaviors seen in its environment. While high productivity can be a sign of leadership, the institution effectively mitigates the risks associated with extreme publication volumes, such as coercive authorship or "salami slicing." This demonstrates strong oversight and a culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record and meaningful intellectual contribution over the pursuit of sheer volume.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a near-total absence of risk, a profile consistent with the low-risk national standard (-0.010). This low-profile consistency is a positive sign of good governance. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the university sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, where production might bypass rigorous external peer review. This practice ensures its research is validated through standard competitive channels, thereby enhancing its global visibility and credibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of 1.072 constitutes a monitoring alert, as this medium risk level is highly unusual for the national standard, which is characterized by a very low risk (Z-score: -0.515). This disparity requires a review of its causes. A high value in this indicator alerts to the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, a practice known as 'salami slicing.' This behavior not only distorts the available scientific evidence but also overburdens the peer-review system, signaling a need to reinforce policies that prioritize the publication of significant new knowledge over publication volume.