Sichuan Tourism University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Sichuan Tourism University presents a dual profile in scientific integrity, demonstrating exceptional control in core research practices while exhibiting specific, high-impact vulnerabilities. With an overall score of 0.406, the institution's primary strengths lie in its robust governance over authorship and citation patterns, showing very low risk in Institutional Self-Citation, Hyper-Authored Output, Hyperprolific Authors, and Redundant Output. These positive indicators suggest a culture that prioritizes substantive research over metric inflation. However, this is contrasted by a significant risk in the Rate of Retracted Output and medium-level risks in Multiple Affiliations, Output in Discontinued Journals, and a notable gap between its overall impact and the impact of its self-led research. The university's main scientific contributions, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, are concentrated in areas such as Business, Management and Accounting; Economics, Econometrics and Finance; and Social Sciences, complemented by output in Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Chemistry, and Computer Science. Although the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, the identified risks—particularly the high rate of retractions and publication in questionable journals—directly challenge the universal academic values of excellence and social responsibility. To secure its long-term reputation, the university is advised to leverage its strong internal controls on authorship to implement a more rigorous strategy for publication channel selection and pre-publication quality assurance, ensuring its impactful research is built on a foundation of verifiable integrity.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution registers a Z-score of 1.896, indicating a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.062. This suggests that the university shows a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers across the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the higher rate at this institution warrants a closer look. It signals a potential strategic use of affiliations to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” a practice that does not appear to be a systemic trend at the national level. A review of affiliation policies could ensure that all declared affiliations correspond to substantive and transparent collaborations.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 1.188 against a national average of -0.050, the institution exhibits a severe discrepancy in its rate of retracted publications. This level of risk activity is highly atypical for the national context and requires immediate attention. Retractions can sometimes reflect responsible error correction, but a rate this far above the norm suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be failing systemically. This critical alert points to a significant vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that necessitates an urgent and deep qualitative assessment by management to identify and rectify the root causes.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution demonstrates exceptional performance in this area, with a Z-score of -1.156, which contrasts sharply with the national medium-risk average of 0.045. This result indicates a successful preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics of scientific isolation observed elsewhere in its environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but by maintaining such a low rate, the institution proves its work is validated by the broader scientific community, not just within an internal 'echo chamber.' This practice reinforces the global recognition of its research and mitigates any risk of endogamous impact inflation.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The university's Z-score of 0.761 represents a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.024. This shows that the institution has a greater exposure to this risk than its national counterparts. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. This score indicates that a portion of the university's scientific output is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to reputational damage and suggesting an urgent need to improve information literacy and guidance for researchers to avoid predatory or low-quality venues.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.261 compared to the country's -0.721, the institution shows low-profile consistency in managing authorship. The absence of risk signals in this indicator aligns with the low-risk national standard, confirming that the university's authorship practices are well-governed. This demonstrates a commitment to transparency and accountability, successfully avoiding the trend of author list inflation which can dilute individual responsibility. This result suggests that authorship is generally assigned based on meaningful contributions rather than honorary or political considerations.

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

The institution's Z-score of 1.129 presents a monitoring alert, as it is an unusually high risk level compared to the national standard of -0.809. This wide positive gap—where overall impact is significantly higher than the impact of research led by the institution—signals a potential sustainability risk. It suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be heavily dependent and exogenous, rather than stemming from its own structural capacity. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether its high-impact metrics result from genuine internal capabilities or from a positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The university shows a Z-score of -1.413, a clear instance of preventive isolation from the national trend, which sits at a medium-risk level of 0.425. This excellent result indicates that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics associated with extreme publication volumes. While high productivity can be legitimate, this low score suggests the university fosters a healthy balance between quantity and quality. It effectively avoids the risks of coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or assigning authorship without real participation, thereby prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over the pursuit of sheer volume.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 demonstrates low-profile consistency, aligning well with the national average of -0.010. This absence of risk signals is positive, indicating that the university is not overly reliant on its own journals for dissemination. By prioritizing external, independent peer review, the institution avoids the conflicts of interest and academic endogamy that can arise when acting as both judge and party. This approach enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its research, steering clear of using internal channels as potential 'fast tracks' to inflate publication records.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of -1.186, the institution exhibits total operational silence on this indicator, performing even better than the very low-risk national average of -0.515. This absence of risk signals, even below the national baseline, is a strong testament to the integrity of its publication practices. It indicates that researchers are focused on producing coherent, significant studies rather than engaging in 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a single study into multiple minimal units to artificially inflate productivity. This commitment to substantive contributions strengthens the scientific evidence base and upholds the highest standards of research ethics.