| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.548 | -0.119 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.428 | -0.208 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.390 | 0.208 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.424 | -0.328 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.375 | 0.881 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.154 | 0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | 0.288 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.139 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.775 | 0.778 |
The University of Hyogo presents a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in its overall Z-score of -0.289, indicating a low-risk operational environment. The institution demonstrates exceptional control over key risk areas, with very low indicators for retracted output, hyperprolific authorship, and publication in discontinued or institutional journals. However, a medium risk level is observed in three specific areas that exceed the national average for Japan: institutional self-citation, the gap in impact between collaborative and institution-led research, and redundant output (salami slicing). According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, these integrity metrics support a strong research portfolio with notable national leadership in areas such as Energy (ranked 34th), Mathematics (39th), Social Sciences (59th), and Computer Science (70th). While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, the identified vulnerabilities, particularly those related to self-citation and redundant publication, could challenge the universal academic values of excellence and external validation. These practices, if unaddressed, risk creating an 'echo chamber' that may undermine the institution's social responsibility to produce transparent and globally impactful knowledge. A proactive strategy to address these specific medium-risk indicators will not only mitigate potential reputational damage but also reinforce the university's strong foundation, ensuring its thematic strengths translate into sustainable and unimpeachable scientific leadership.
The University of Hyogo shows a Z-score of -0.548 for this indicator, which is below the national average of -0.119. This suggests a prudent and rigorous approach to managing author affiliations, exceeding the standard practices observed across Japan. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the institution's lower rate indicates robust policies that effectively prevent strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” reinforcing a culture of clear and transparent contribution.
With a Z-score of -0.428, the institution demonstrates a near-absence of retracted publications, a figure that aligns with and improves upon the low national average of -0.208. This low-profile consistency suggests that the university's quality control and supervision mechanisms are effective. Retractions can sometimes signify responsible error correction, but the institution's exceptionally low rate points towards a strong preventative culture, where methodological rigor and integrity are successfully upheld before publication, minimizing the occurrence of systemic failures.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is 0.390, notably higher than the national average of 0.208. This indicates a greater tendency toward this practice compared to its national peers, suggesting a high level of exposure to associated risks. A certain degree of self-citation is natural for continuing research lines, but this elevated rate warns of a potential 'echo chamber' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This dynamic could lead to an endogamous inflation of impact, where the institution's academic influence appears oversized by internal citation patterns rather than by broader recognition from the global scientific community.
The university's Z-score of -0.424 for publication in discontinued journals is well within the low-risk spectrum, consistent with the national trend (Z-score of -0.328). This result reflects a commendable due diligence in selecting publication venues. A high rate in this indicator would be a critical alert, but the institution's performance shows that its researchers are successfully avoiding channels that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This protects the university from reputational damage and ensures that research efforts are not wasted on predatory or low-quality outlets.
The University of Hyogo presents a Z-score of -0.375, contrasting sharply with the national medium-risk average of 0.881. This demonstrates significant institutional resilience, as the university appears to have control mechanisms that successfully mitigate a systemic risk prevalent in the country. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' the institution's low score outside these contexts suggests it effectively discourages author list inflation. This fosters a culture of accountability and transparency, ensuring authorship is earned through meaningful contribution rather than diluted by 'honorary' or political practices.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 1.154 in this indicator, exceeding the already medium-risk national average of 0.809. This signals a high exposure to the risks of intellectual dependency, as the gap between the impact of its total output and the impact of research it leads is more pronounced than in the rest of the country. A wide positive gap suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be overly reliant on external partners and collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether its high-impact metrics stem from genuine internal capacity or from a positioning that risks long-term sustainability.
With an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.413, the institution shows a complete absence of hyperprolific authorship, standing in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.288. This demonstrates a clear preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed elsewhere in the country. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's result indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, successfully avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific record.
The university's Z-score of -0.268 is exceptionally low, indicating a near-total absence of publication in its own journals, and is even lower than the national average of -0.139. This reflects a state of total operational silence regarding this risk, showcasing a strong commitment to external validation. While in-house journals can serve local purposes, over-reliance on them creates conflicts of interest. The institution's practice of seeking external, independent peer review for its research output enhances its global visibility and credibility, effectively avoiding any perception of academic endogamy or the use of internal channels to bypass standard competitive validation.
The institution's Z-score for redundant output is 1.775, a figure significantly higher than the national medium-risk average of 0.778. This result indicates a high exposure to the practice of 'salami slicing,' where research may be fragmented to inflate publication counts. While citing previous work is essential, the high bibliographic overlap detected suggests a pattern of dividing coherent studies into minimal publishable units. This practice not only overburdens the peer-review system but also distorts the scientific evidence base, prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant, consolidated new knowledge.
