Zhengzhou Normal University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Zhengzhou Normal University presents a complex integrity profile, with an overall risk score of 1.018 that reflects a combination of exceptional strengths and critical vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates exemplary control in authorial practices, with very low risk signals for Hyper-Authored Output, Hyperprolific Authors, and Output in Institutional Journals. It also effectively mitigates the risk of Institutional Self-Citation, performing better than the national average. However, these strengths are severely counterbalanced by significant risks in publication practices, specifically an alarming Rate of Retracted Output and an extremely high Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals. These two indicators represent severe discrepancies from the national standard and require immediate strategic intervention. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas include Psychology, Earth and Planetary Sciences, and Agricultural and Biological Sciences. While mission-specific information was not available, these identified risks directly threaten any institutional goal centered on academic excellence and social responsibility. The prevalence of publications in discontinued journals and a high retraction rate could undermine the credibility of its research and damage the reputation of its strongest academic fields. To secure its strategic vision, it is recommended that the university leverage its robust governance in authorship to implement urgent, rigorous quality control and information literacy programs focused on the selection of publication venues and pre-submission review.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of 1.690, a value that indicates a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.062. This suggests 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, a disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” The observed score warrants a review to ensure that all affiliations are substantive and reflect genuine collaboration rather than a mechanism for metric enhancement.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 1.160, the institution shows a significant level of risk, creating a severe discrepancy when compared to the low-risk national context (Z-score: -0.050). This atypical risk activity requires a deep integrity assessment. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the average 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 to protect the university's scientific reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution demonstrates a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.701, positioning it in a low-risk category and showcasing institutional resilience compared to the national average of 0.045. This indicates that the university's control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks of academic endogamy observed elsewhere in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but by maintaining a low rate, the institution avoids creating 'echo chambers' and ensures its work is validated by the broader scientific community, reflecting an impact based on external recognition rather than internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The university's Z-score of 3.719 is a critical red flag, indicating a significant risk level that is in severe discrepancy with the national average of -0.024. This extremely high value constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence exercised in selecting dissemination channels. It indicates that a significant portion of the institution's scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need for information literacy programs to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publications.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.203, the institution exhibits a very low risk profile, demonstrating low-profile consistency with the national standard (Z-score: -0.721). The absence of risk signals in this area is a positive indicator of sound academic practice. It suggests that authorship is managed responsibly, effectively distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration in 'Big Science' contexts and inappropriate 'honorary' or political authorship. This commitment to transparency and accountability in authorship strengthens the integrity of the institution's research output.

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

The institution's Z-score of 0.241 places it at a medium risk level, which acts as a monitoring alert as it is an unusual level for the national standard, where the risk is very low (Z-score: -0.809). This positive gap suggests that the institution's overall scientific prestige may be dependent on external partners rather than its own structural capacity. This signals a potential sustainability risk, where excellence metrics could result more from strategic positioning in collaborations than from real internal capacity. It invites reflection on strategies to strengthen intellectual leadership in its research endeavors.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution shows a Z-score of -1.413, indicating a very low risk and a state of preventive isolation from national trends (Z-score: 0.425). While the country shows a medium risk for hyperprolificity, the university does not replicate these dynamics. This suggests a healthy balance between quantity and quality in its research environment, effectively avoiding the risks associated with extreme publication volumes, such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation. This focus on meaningful intellectual contribution over sheer volume is a sign of a robust integrity culture.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution maintains a very low-risk profile that aligns with the national standard (Z-score: -0.010), demonstrating low-profile consistency. This indicates a healthy and appropriate use of in-house journals, avoiding excessive dependence on them. By prioritizing external, independent peer review, the university mitigates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This approach enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its research, ensuring its work is judged against international standards rather than through internal 'fast tracks'.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of 0.170 signifies a medium risk, creating a monitoring alert due to its divergence from the very low-risk national environment (Z-score: -0.515). This unusual risk level suggests a potential tendency toward data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' A high value in this indicator alerts to the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice can distort the available scientific evidence and overburden the review system, indicating a need to review policies to encourage the publication of more significant, cohesive works.