| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.749 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.108 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.013 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
2.078 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.215 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.529 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.998 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -0.515 |
Jilin Agricultural Science and Technology University presents a strong overall integrity profile, marked by a commendable overall score of 0.237. The institution demonstrates exceptional performance in several key areas, establishing a solid foundation of scientific ethics. Strengths are particularly evident in the extremely low rates of Institutional Self-Citation, Hyper-Authored Output, Hyperprolific Authorship, and Redundant Output, where the university significantly outperforms national averages, indicating a culture that prioritizes external validation and substantive research over metric inflation. However, this robust core is contrasted by three areas requiring strategic attention: a moderate deviation in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, a concerningly high Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, and a significant Gap between the impact of its total output and that of research under its own leadership. Thematically, the university showcases notable strengths in specific fields, with its highest national rankings according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data in Veterinary (99th), Agricultural and Biological Sciences (233rd), Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (289th), and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (319th). While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, the identified risks—particularly the reliance on external leadership for impact and publication in potentially predatory journals—could challenge any mission centered on achieving sustainable research excellence and social responsibility. By addressing these vulnerabilities, the university can protect its reputation, ensure the long-term value of its research, and fully leverage its clear thematic strengths to solidify its role as a leading academic institution.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 0.749, which represents a moderate deviation from the national Z-score of -0.062. This indicates that the university shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors associated with multiple affiliations than its national peers. While many instances are legitimate results of collaboration, this heightened rate warrants a closer look. It is important to verify that these affiliations reflect genuine partnerships and researcher mobility rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” ensuring that all declared contributions are substantive and transparent.
With a Z-score of -0.108, the institution's rate of retractions is low but signals an incipient vulnerability when compared to the national average of -0.050. Although the overall risk is minimal, this slight elevation compared to the national context suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms could be an area for proactive review. Retractions can be complex, but a rate that edges above the norm, however slightly, serves as an early warning to reinforce methodological rigor and supervisory oversight to prevent any potential issues from escalating into a systemic pattern.
The institution demonstrates exceptional performance in this area, with a Z-score of -1.013, positioning it in a state of preventive isolation from the risk dynamics observed nationally (Z-score: 0.045). This very low rate is a strong positive signal, indicating that the university does not replicate the trend of endogamous impact inflation seen elsewhere in the country. Instead of relying on internal 'echo chambers' for validation, the institution's work is clearly being recognized and cited by the broader, external scientific community, reflecting genuine global integration and influence.
The institution's Z-score of 2.078 marks a moderate deviation and a significant point of concern, especially when contrasted with the low-risk national average of -0.024. This suggests the university is more susceptible than its peers to channeling research into questionable outlets. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. This pattern exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and indicates that a significant portion of its scientific output may be associated with 'predatory' or low-quality media, signaling an urgent need for enhanced information literacy and stricter guidance for researchers.
With a Z-score of -1.215, the institution shows an absence of risk signals that aligns perfectly with the low-risk national standard (Z-score: -0.721), demonstrating low-profile consistency. This indicates a healthy and responsible approach to authorship attribution. The university successfully avoids the practice of author list inflation, thereby reinforcing individual accountability and transparency. This commitment ensures that author lists accurately reflect substantive intellectual contributions, a cornerstone of research integrity.
A Z-score of 1.529 in this indicator constitutes a monitoring alert, as this risk level is highly unusual when compared to the national standard, which shows a very low-risk Z-score of -0.809. This wide positive gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, not structural. It raises a critical question about sustainability: a significant portion of the university's high-impact work appears to be generated from collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This finding invites deep strategic reflection on how to build and showcase genuine internal research capacity to ensure long-term excellence.
The institution's Z-score of -0.998 places it in a state of preventive isolation, as it effectively avoids the risk dynamics related to hyperprolific authorship that are more prevalent at the national level (Z-score: 0.425). This very low score is a strong indicator of a healthy research environment where quality is not sacrificed for quantity. It suggests the absence of practices like coercive authorship or extreme 'salami slicing,' reflecting a culture that values meaningful intellectual contribution over the simple inflation of publication metrics.
The institution maintains a low-profile consistency with national standards, showing a Z-score of -0.268 against the country's -0.010. This absence of risk signals indicates a commendable commitment to external validation. By not over-relying on its own journals, the university avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its research undergoes independent, external peer review, which is essential for achieving global visibility and upholding competitive quality standards, rather than using internal channels as potential 'fast tracks' for publication.
In this indicator, the institution demonstrates total operational silence, with a Z-score of -1.186 that is even lower than the already very low national average of -0.515. This exceptional result signals an exemplary commitment to publishing substantive and coherent research. The near-complete absence of bibliographic overlap between publications indicates that the university's researchers are not engaging in 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting studies into minimal publishable units. This reflects a culture that prioritizes the generation of significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of productivity metrics.
