| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.733 | -0.119 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.127 | -0.208 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
2.684 | 0.208 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.304 | -0.328 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
3.082 | 0.881 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
3.773 | 0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.565 | 0.288 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.139 |
|
Redundant Output
|
5.083 | 0.778 |
Hiroshima City University presents a complex integrity profile, with an overall score of 0.588 that masks a sharp contrast between areas of exemplary governance and significant vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates robust control in key areas, particularly its minimal reliance on institutional journals and prudent management of multiple affiliations, which aligns with best practices. However, this is offset by critical alerts in four key indicators: Institutional Self-Citation, Hyper-Authored Output, a notable gap between overall and led-research impact, and a particularly high rate of Redundant Output. These patterns suggest a systemic focus on quantitative output that may inadvertently amplify national risk tendencies. This dynamic poses a direct challenge to the university's mission to "contribute to the development of local and global societies" and foster a "strong international perspective," as the identified risks point towards insular validation and potential dilution of genuine scientific contribution. To fully align its operational practices with its aspirational goals, a strategic review of authorship, citation, and collaboration policies is recommended to ensure that the pursuit of academic excellence is firmly rooted in unimpeachable scientific integrity.
With a Z-score of -0.733, significantly lower than the national average of -0.119, the institution demonstrates a prudent and well-managed approach to academic affiliations. This indicates that the university's processes are more rigorous than the national standard, effectively mitigating the risks associated with strategic "affiliation shopping" or attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit. This low-profile consistency reflects a clear and transparent policy regarding researcher mobility and collaborations.
The institution's Z-score for retracted output is -0.127, which, while low, is slightly above the national average of -0.208. This subtle difference suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring. Retractions are complex events, and while some signify responsible supervision, a rate that begins to diverge from the national norm, even minimally, could indicate that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be under strain. This signal should prompt a proactive review to ensure that institutional integrity culture remains robust and that potential methodological issues are addressed before they escalate.
The university shows a significant Z-score of 2.684 in institutional self-citation, a figure that starkly contrasts with the moderate national average of 0.208. This demonstrates a strong accentuation of a vulnerability present in the national system, pointing to concerning scientific isolation. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, this disproportionately high rate signals a risk of creating an 'echo chamber' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. Such a practice can lead to endogamous impact inflation, suggesting the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than genuine recognition from the global community, a trend that requires immediate strategic attention.
With a Z-score of -0.304, the institution's rate of publication in discontinued journals is statistically normal and aligns closely with the national average of -0.328. This alignment indicates that the risk level is as expected for its context, reflecting adequate due diligence in the selection of dissemination channels. The data suggests that researchers are effectively avoiding predatory or low-quality publishing practices, thereby safeguarding the institution's resources and reputation.
The institution's Z-score for hyper-authored output is 3.082, a significant value that dramatically amplifies the moderate risk level seen at the national level (0.881). This pattern raises critical questions about authorship practices. Outside of 'Big Science' contexts where large author lists are standard, such a high rate can indicate systemic author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This signal serves as an urgent call to investigate the drivers behind this trend and distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and the potential for 'honorary' or political authorship practices that compromise research integrity.
A Z-score of 3.773 reveals a critically wide gap between the institution's overall publication impact and the impact of research where it holds a leadership role, far exceeding the national average of 0.809. This accentuation of a national trend signals a significant sustainability risk. The high value suggests that the institution's scientific prestige may be largely dependent and exogenous, rather than being built on its own structural capacity. This finding invites urgent reflection on whether the university's excellence metrics result from genuine internal innovation or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The institution's Z-score of 0.565 for hyperprolific authors indicates a higher exposure to this risk compared to the national average of 0.288. This suggests the university is more prone than its peers to hosting authors with extreme publication volumes. While high productivity can be legitimate, this elevated rate alerts to a potential imbalance between quantity and quality. It points to risks such as coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or the assignment of authorship without meaningful participation—dynamics that prioritize metric accumulation over the integrity of the scientific record and warrant a review of academic workload and contribution standards.
The institution exhibits total operational silence in this area, with a Z-score of -0.268 that is even lower than the country's already minimal average of -0.139. This is an indicator of exceptional governance. By avoiding reliance on in-house journals, the university effectively sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice demonstrates a strong commitment to independent, external peer review, ensuring its scientific production is validated through competitive global channels and maximizing its international visibility.
With a critically high Z-score of 5.083, the institution's rate of redundant output is an extreme outlier, drastically amplifying the moderate risk seen in the national system (0.778). This value is a major red flag for the practice of 'salami slicing,' where coherent studies are fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice not only overburdens the peer review system but, more importantly, distorts the available scientific evidence by prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge. An urgent audit of publication practices is required to address this vulnerability.
