| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.763 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.126 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.672 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.167 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.318 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.217 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.012 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.903 | -0.515 |
Shandong Technology and Business University presents a balanced integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.164 that indicates a position slightly more robust than the global average. The institution demonstrates exceptional control and very low risk in foundational areas such as the Rate of Redundant Output, Hyper-Authored Output, and Output in Institutional Journals. However, areas requiring strategic monitoring have been identified, particularly a moderate risk in the Rate of Retracted Output, publication in Discontinued Journals, and a significant gap between its total research impact and the impact of work where it holds intellectual leadership. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas include Earth and Planetary Sciences, Economics, Econometrics and Finance, Computer Science, and Engineering. While a specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, the identified vulnerabilities could challenge the universal academic goals of achieving sustainable excellence and social responsibility. A reliance on external partners for impact or channeling work through low-quality journals can undermine the long-term development of sovereign research capacity. By leveraging its clear strengths in research practice governance, the university is well-positioned to address these moderate risks, thereby reinforcing its commitment to scientific integrity and solidifying its growing reputation in its key disciplines.
With a Z-score of -0.763, the institution demonstrates a lower rate of multiple affiliations compared to the national average of -0.062. This prudent profile suggests that the university manages its affiliation processes with more rigor than the national standard. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility and partnerships, the institution's controlled rate indicates a low probability of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” reflecting a solid governance framework in this area.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.126, while the national average is -0.050. This result signals a moderate deviation from the national trend, suggesting the institution shows a greater sensitivity to the factors leading to retractions than its peers in China. A rate significantly higher than the average alerts to a vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, suggesting that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing more frequently than elsewhere in the country. This may indicate recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor requiring immediate qualitative verification by management to safeguard its scientific reputation.
The university's Z-score of -0.672 is notably lower than the national average of 0.045, which falls into a medium-risk category. This demonstrates strong institutional resilience, as internal control mechanisms appear to effectively mitigate the systemic risks of self-citation observed at the national level. A certain level of self-citation is natural; however, by maintaining a low rate, the institution avoids signals of scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' This result indicates that the university's academic influence is validated by the global community rather than being oversized by internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of 0.167 contrasts with the low-risk national average of -0.024. This moderate deviation indicates that the university is more sensitive than its national peers to the risk of publishing in questionable venues. A high proportion of output in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score indicates that a portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to reputational risks and suggesting a need to enhance information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of -1.318, the institution shows a very low incidence of hyper-authorship, well below the national average of -0.721. This low-profile consistency demonstrates an absence of risk signals in this area, aligning with and even exceeding the national standard for responsible authorship practices. This result suggests that the university's research culture effectively distinguishes between necessary large-scale collaboration and practices like 'honorary' or political authorship, thereby promoting individual accountability and transparency in its scientific contributions.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 0.217, a stark contrast to the national average of -0.809. This score represents a monitoring alert, as it is an unusual risk level when compared to the national standard, which shows a very low gap. A wide positive gap—where global impact is high but the impact of research led by the institution itself is low—signals a potential sustainability risk. This value suggests that a portion of the institution's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, not structural, inviting a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The institution registers a Z-score of 0.012, which, despite being in the medium-risk category, is considerably lower than the national average of 0.425. This reflects a differentiated management approach, where the university successfully moderates the risks of hyperprolificacy that appear more common across the country. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. By maintaining a lower rate, the institution mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, demonstrating a culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over sheer volume.
The university's Z-score of -0.268 indicates a very low rate of publication in its own journals, performing better than the national average of -0.010. This low-profile consistency shows an absence of risk signals and aligns with national standards for external validation. In-house journals can be valuable, but excessive dependence on them raises conflicts of interest. The institution's low score is a positive sign that it avoids academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review and is not channeled through internal 'fast tracks' that bypass standard competitive validation.
The institution demonstrates a Z-score of -0.903, indicating an exceptionally low rate of redundant publications, even when compared to the country's already low-risk average of -0.515. This signifies a state of total operational silence in this area, with an absence of risk signals that is even below the national benchmark. This strong result suggests that the university's researchers are not engaging in data fragmentation or 'salami slicing' to artificially inflate productivity. It reflects a mature research culture focused on producing significant new knowledge rather than prioritizing volume, which strengthens the scientific record and respects the academic review system.
