| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.390 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
6.194 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.794 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
3.247 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.173 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
3.159 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -0.515 |
Yantai Nanshan University presents a complex scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of 2.429 that reflects a sharp contrast between areas of exceptional control and domains requiring urgent strategic intervention. The institution demonstrates remarkable strengths and a very low-risk profile in crucial areas such as Institutional Self-Citation, Hyper-Authored Output, Hyperprolific Authors, Output in Institutional Journals, and Redundant Output, suggesting robust internal governance and a culture that prioritizes quality over problematic quantitative metrics in these domains. However, this positive performance is counterbalanced by significant alerts in the Rate of Retracted Output, Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, and a critical dependency on external collaborations for impact. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university has established notable research capacity in thematic areas like Chemistry and Engineering. As the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, it is assessed against the universal academic goals of excellence and integrity. The identified high-risk indicators, particularly those concerning retractions and publication in questionable journals, directly challenge the pursuit of research excellence and pose a substantial reputational threat. A focused and immediate intervention in these specific areas is recommended, leveraging the institution's evident strengths in other integrity domains to foster a more uniformly resilient and sustainable research ecosystem.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 1.390, which represents a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.062. This indicates that the university shows a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the higher rate at this institution warrants a closer look. It suggests a potential over-reliance on this practice, which, if not properly managed, could be perceived as a strategic attempt to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping" rather than a reflection of genuine, substantive collaboration.
With a Z-score of 6.194, the institution shows a severe discrepancy compared to the national average of -0.050. This risk activity is highly atypical for the national context and requires a deep integrity assessment. Retractions are complex events, but a rate so significantly higher than the norm is a critical alert that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This extreme value moves beyond isolated incidents and points towards a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that demands immediate qualitative verification by management.
The institution's Z-score of -1.794 is a sign of excellent practice, particularly when contrasted with the national average of 0.045, which falls into the medium-risk category. This demonstrates a form of preventive isolation, where the university successfully avoids risk dynamics observed elsewhere in its environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this very low rate confirms that the institution is not operating within a scientific 'echo chamber.' Instead, it indicates healthy integration with the global research community and ensures its academic influence is validated by external scrutiny rather than being inflated by endogamous internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of 3.247 marks a severe discrepancy from the national average of -0.024, signaling risk activity that is highly unusual and concerning for its context. This high proportion of publications in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. Such a high Z-score indicates that a significant portion of the university'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 enhanced information literacy and policy to prevent the misallocation of resources to 'predatory' or low-quality publishing.
With a Z-score of -1.173, the institution maintains a low-risk profile that is consistent with the national standard (-0.721). The absence of risk signals in this area aligns with the national norm, indicating sound authorship practices. In fields outside of 'Big Science,' extensive author lists can signal inflation or a dilution of accountability. This institution's low score suggests that its authorship practices are generally appropriate for its disciplinary context, effectively avoiding the risks of 'honorary' or political authorship and maintaining transparency in crediting contributions.
The institution's Z-score of 3.159 represents a critical anomaly, making it an absolute outlier in a national environment where this risk is very low (country Z-score: -0.809). An urgent process audit is recommended. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a significant sustainability risk. This extreme value suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is heavily dependent and exogenous, not structural. It calls for a deep reflection on whether its excellence metrics are derived from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership.
The institution demonstrates strong governance in this area with a Z-score of -1.413, effectively isolating itself from the medium-risk trend observed at the national level (country Z-score: 0.425). This preventive stance is commendable. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's very low indicator value suggests a healthy institutional balance between quantity and quality, successfully mitigating risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is in close alignment with the low-risk national standard of -0.010. This low-profile consistency indicates that the university's publication practices are well-calibrated to its environment. By not depending excessively on its own journals, the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest where it would act as both judge and party. This commitment to seeking independent, external peer review minimizes the risk of academic endogamy and prevents the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication, thereby enhancing the global visibility and competitive validation of its research.
With a Z-score of -1.186, the institution shows total operational silence on this indicator, performing even better than the already low-risk national average of -0.515. This exemplary result indicates an absence of risk signals related to data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' The data strongly suggest that the institution's researchers are focused on producing coherent, significant studies rather than artificially inflating productivity by dividing work into minimal publishable units. This reflects a mature research culture that prioritizes the generation of substantive new knowledge over the distortion of the scientific evidence base.
