| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.148 | -0.119 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.691 | -0.208 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.743 | 0.208 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.330 | -0.328 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.098 | 0.881 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.589 | 0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | 0.288 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.139 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | 0.778 |
Hokkaido University of Health Sciences demonstrates a commendable overall scientific integrity profile, with a global risk score of -0.498 that indicates robust internal governance and a strong commitment to ethical research practices. The institution exhibits exceptional strength in preventing misconduct, showing very low risk in the rates of retracted output, hyperprolific authors, redundant publications, and output in its own journals. These results point to a culture that prioritizes quality, accountability, and external validation. The primary areas for strategic attention are a moderate rate of multiple affiliations and a noticeable gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work where it holds intellectual leadership. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's scientific prowess is concentrated in key health-related fields, including Dentistry, Medicine, Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology. While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, its strong integrity performance aligns with the universal academic values of excellence and social responsibility. The identified moderate risks, however, could subtly challenge this alignment if unmonitored. It is therefore recommended that the university leverage its solid integrity foundation to proactively address these specific vulnerabilities, ensuring its impressive research output is matched by unimpeachable transparency and sustainable, self-led scientific advancement.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.148, which contrasts with the national average of -0.119. This moderate deviation indicates that the university shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors related to affiliation than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the higher rate here suggests a need to review whether these are all driven by organic collaboration. The divergence from the national standard, where this practice is less common, warrants a closer examination to ensure that affiliations are not being used strategically to inflate institutional credit, a practice sometimes referred to as “affiliation shopping.”
With a Z-score of -0.691, significantly lower than the national average of -0.208, the institution demonstrates an exemplary record in publication reliability. This low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with and improves upon the national standard, is a strong indicator of effective pre-publication quality control. Retractions can sometimes signify responsible supervision through the correction of honest errors; however, such a low rate suggests that the institution's mechanisms for ensuring methodological rigor are systemically successful, preventing the need for such corrections and reinforcing a culture of high scientific integrity.
The institution's Z-score of -0.743 is substantially lower than the national average of 0.208, showcasing remarkable institutional resilience. This indicates that the university's control mechanisms effectively mitigate the systemic risks of self-citation that are more prevalent in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution successfully avoids the 'echo chambers' that can lead to endogamous impact inflation. By maintaining a low rate, the university ensures its academic influence is validated by the global community rather than being oversized by internal dynamics, demonstrating a commitment to external scrutiny and broad scientific dialogue.
The institution's Z-score of -0.330 is nearly identical to the national average of -0.328, indicating a level of statistical normality. This alignment suggests the risk of publishing in low-quality or discontinued journals is as expected for its context and is managed with a standard degree of diligence. While a sporadic presence in such journals can occur, the low scores for both the institution and the country reflect a generally successful selection of dissemination channels. This parity implies that the university's information literacy and due diligence processes are in line with national best practices, effectively minimizing reputational risks.
Displaying a Z-score of -0.098 against a national average of 0.881, the institution demonstrates strong institutional resilience against a common national trend. This performance suggests it acts as an effective filter, resisting the country's systemic tendency towards hyper-authorship. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' a low score outside these contexts is a positive signal. It indicates that the university successfully distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and practices like 'honorary' authorship, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency in its publications.
The institution's Z-score of 0.589, while indicating a moderate risk, is notably lower than the national average of 0.809. This reflects a differentiated management approach, where the university moderates a risk that appears more common across the country. The positive gap suggests that some of the institution's scientific prestige is dependent on collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. However, by maintaining a smaller gap than its peers, the university shows greater progress in building structural, internal capacity, reducing the sustainability risk associated with relying on external partners for impact.
With an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.413 compared to the national average of 0.288, the institution achieves a state of preventive isolation. This result shows it does not replicate the risk dynamics related to extreme publication volumes observed elsewhere in the country. Such a low score is a powerful indicator of an institutional culture that prioritizes quality and meaningful intellectual contribution over sheer quantity. It suggests the university has strong safeguards against practices like coercive authorship or metric-driven productivity, thus protecting the integrity of its scientific record and fostering a healthy research environment.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is well below the already low national average of -0.139, signifying a state of total operational silence in this risk area. This exemplary performance indicates an absence of risk signals even below the national baseline. By avoiding dependence on in-house journals, the university demonstrates a profound commitment to independent, external peer review, thereby eliminating potential conflicts of interest where an institution acts as both judge and party. This practice significantly enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, ensuring its work is validated through standard competitive channels.
The institution's Z-score of -1.186 stands in stark contrast to the national average of 0.778, indicating a clear case of preventive isolation. This means the university does not replicate the risk dynamics of data fragmentation that are present in its national environment. This extremely low score signals a robust institutional stance against 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing a single study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. By fostering the publication of coherent, significant new knowledge, the institution upholds the integrity of the scientific evidence base and avoids overburdening the peer review system.
