| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.835 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.070 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.611 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.214 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.225 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.689 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
1.625 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
2.728 | -0.515 |
Qujing Normal University presents a complex integrity profile, with an overall score of 0.404 that reflects a combination of notable strengths and critical areas for improvement. The institution demonstrates robust control in key areas, particularly its very low rate of publication in institutional journals, which signals a healthy reliance on external peer review. However, this is contrasted by a significant risk in the Rate of Redundant Output (Salami Slicing), which stands as a critical anomaly against a low-risk national backdrop. This specific vulnerability, along with medium-level risks in multiple affiliations, retractions, and self-citation, requires strategic intervention. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest research areas include Chemistry, Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, and Physics and Astronomy. To fully realize its mission of fostering "integrity, benevolence, wisdom and practice," it is imperative that the university addresses the identified integrity risks. Practices that prioritize publication volume over substantive contribution, such as redundant output, directly challenge the core values of "integrity" and "realism." By implementing targeted governance reforms to mitigate these vulnerabilities, Qujing Normal University can better align its operational practices with its aspirational mission, ensuring its thematic strengths are built on a foundation of unimpeachable scientific rigor.
The institution's Z-score of 0.835 indicates a moderate deviation from the national Z-score of -0.062. This suggests that the university shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors related to affiliation practices than its national peers. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, the university's higher rate compared to a low-risk national environment could signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping." This discrepancy warrants a review to ensure that all affiliations are transparent, justified by genuine collaboration, and do not artificially boost institutional metrics.
With a Z-score of 0.070 against a national average of -0.050, the university displays a moderate deviation from the country's low-risk standard. This suggests that the institution is more susceptible to the factors leading to retractions than its peers. A rate significantly higher than the national average alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. It suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing more frequently than elsewhere in the country, indicating a possible lack of methodological rigor or recurring malpractice that requires immediate qualitative verification by management.
The institution's Z-score of 0.611, compared to the country's Z-score of 0.045, indicates high exposure to this risk. Although both operate within a medium-risk context, the university's rate is substantially higher, suggesting it is more prone to these practices than the national average. A certain level of self-citation is natural; however, this disproportionately high rate can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than global community recognition.
The university's Z-score of 0.214 represents a moderate deviation from the national Z-score of -0.024. This indicates that the institution is more sensitive than its peers to the risk of publishing in low-quality or predatory outlets. A 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. This exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need for enhanced information literacy and due diligence training to prevent the misallocation of research efforts and resources.
With a Z-score of -0.225, the institution shows an incipient vulnerability when compared to the national average of -0.721. While both scores fall within a low-risk range, the university's rate is notably higher, suggesting the emergence of signals that warrant review before they escalate. This indicator serves as a signal to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and 'honorary' or political authorship practices. The slight upward trend relative to the country suggests a need for proactive monitoring to ensure that author lists remain transparent and that individual accountability is not being diluted by inflation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.689 marks a slight divergence from the national Z-score of -0.809. While the university's risk is low, it is more pronounced than in the rest of the country, where the risk is very low. This subtle difference signals a potential sustainability risk. It suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be more dependent on external collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This invites reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in partnerships, a dependency that is less apparent at the national level.
The institution's Z-score of 1.625 signifies high exposure to this risk, especially when contrasted with the national Z-score of 0.425. Both fall within a medium-risk category, but the university's value is significantly higher, indicating it is more prone to this behavior than its environment. Extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This high 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 scientific record integrity and appear to be more concentrated here than in the country at large.
The institution demonstrates low-profile consistency with a Z-score of -0.268, which is firmly in the very low-risk category, compared to the country's low-risk Z-score of -0.010. This absence of risk signals aligns perfectly with the national standard for integrity in this area. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the university effectively mitigates potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, thereby enhancing its global visibility and credibility, and showing strong internal governance.
The institution's Z-score of 2.728 represents a critical anomaly, placing it in the significant risk category, while the national Z-score of -0.515 indicates a very low-risk environment. The university is an absolute outlier in what is otherwise a healthy national context, making this the most urgent issue to address. This high value alerts to the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This behavior distorts the scientific evidence, overburdens the review system, and prioritizes volume over significant new knowledge. An immediate and thorough audit of publication and research assessment processes is essential to correct this severe discrepancy.
