Neijiang Normal University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Neijiang Normal University presents a complex integrity profile, with an overall score of 0.779 that reflects both significant strengths and critical areas for improvement. The institution demonstrates exceptional control over internal academic practices, showing very low risk in hyperprolific authorship, institutional self-citation, and output in its own journals. These strengths suggest a foundational culture that values quality and external validation. However, this is contrasted by two significant vulnerabilities: an atypically high Rate of Retracted Output and a critical level of Redundant Output (salami slicing), which require immediate strategic intervention. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest research areas include Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, Earth and Planetary Sciences, Social Sciences, and Computer Science. While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, the identified risks directly challenge universal principles of academic excellence and social responsibility. To protect its reputation and the impact of its strongest research fields, it is recommended that the university implement a targeted action plan focused on reinforcing pre-publication quality controls and authorship ethics, thereby aligning its operational practices with its evident potential for scientific leadership.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of 1.723 indicates a moderate deviation from the national standard, where the Z-score is -0.062. This suggests the university shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of collaboration, a rate this much higher than the country average can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” This disparity warrants an internal review to ensure that all declared affiliations are transparent, substantively justified by genuine collaborative work, and align with institutional policy.

Rate of Retracted Output

A severe discrepancy exists between the institution's Z-score of 1.206 and the country's low-risk profile of -0.050. This atypical level of risk activity requires a deep integrity assessment. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the national average points to a systemic vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This Z-score suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing, potentially indicating recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification and intervention by management to safeguard scientific credibility.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution demonstrates notable resilience, with a Z-score of -0.457 that is significantly lower than the national average of 0.045. This indicates that internal control mechanisms appear to be successfully mitigating the systemic risks of academic endogamy observed in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but by maintaining a low rate, the university avoids creating 'echo chambers' and ensures its work receives sufficient external scrutiny. This healthy pattern suggests that the institution's academic influence is genuinely recognized by the global community, rather than being inflated by internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

With a Z-score of 0.703, the institution shows a moderate deviation from the national standard (-0.024), indicating a greater sensitivity to risk factors in publication choices than its peers. A high proportion of output in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This score suggests that a significant portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need for improved information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution exhibits a prudent profile with a Z-score of -1.053, which is more rigorous than the national standard of -0.721. This indicates that the university manages its authorship processes with a higher degree of control than the national average. The data does not suggest any inflation of author lists or the presence of 'honorary' authorship practices. Instead, it reflects a healthy culture of collaboration where individual accountability and transparency are well-maintained, distinguishing legitimate teamwork from practices that dilute responsibility.

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

The institution's Z-score of -0.791 shows a slight divergence from the country's very low-risk profile of -0.809. This indicates the presence of minor risk signals that are otherwise absent at the national level. However, the overall low gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is largely structural and not overly dependent on external partners for impact. This healthy balance confirms that its excellence metrics are primarily the result of real internal capacity and intellectual leadership, rather than strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not lead.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

A state of preventive isolation is evident from the institution's very low Z-score of -1.413, which stands in stark contrast to the moderate risk level seen nationally (0.425). The university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. The absence of extreme individual publication volumes indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, effectively avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation. This focus prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of productivity metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution demonstrates low-profile consistency, with a Z-score of -0.268 that aligns with the low-risk national standard (-0.010). The absence of risk signals in this area is a positive sign. By not relying excessively on its own journals, the university avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production is validated through independent external peer review. This practice strengthens the global visibility and credibility of its research, confirming that internal channels are not used as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of 7.740 represents a critical anomaly, positioning it as an absolute outlier within a healthy national environment where the score is -0.515. This extremely high value is an urgent red flag for 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This behavior distorts the available scientific evidence and overburdens the review system. A process audit is urgently required to address this practice, which prioritizes publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.