| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.963 | -0.119 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.616 | -0.208 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.112 | 0.208 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.179 | -0.328 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
1.114 | 0.881 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.875 | 0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.190 | 0.288 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.139 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.674 | 0.778 |
The International University of Health and Welfare presents a balanced scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.210 that reflects a combination of significant strengths and specific areas requiring strategic attention. The institution demonstrates exceptional performance and very low risk in critical areas such as the Rate of Retracted Output, Institutional Self-Citation, Rate of Hyperprolific Authors, Rate of Output in Institutional Journals, and Rate of Redundant Output. These results indicate a robust internal culture of quality control and a commitment to external validation. However, medium-risk signals are present in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, Rate of Hyper-Authored Output, and a notable gap between its total research impact and the impact of work under its direct leadership. These vulnerabilities suggest a need to review policies on affiliation, authorship, and strategies for fostering independent intellectual leadership. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas nationally include Psychology, Agricultural and Biological Sciences, and Medicine. While the institution's specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, the identified risks could challenge the core values of academic excellence and leadership typically central to a health and welfare-focused university. By leveraging its solid foundation in research integrity to address these specific vulnerabilities, the International University of Health and Welfare can further solidify its reputation and ensure its impact is both sustainable and structurally sound.
The institution's Z-score of 0.963 for this indicator places it at a medium risk level, which represents a moderate deviation from the low-risk national standard in Japan (Z-score -0.119). This suggests the university shows a greater sensitivity than its national peers to practices involving multiple institutional affiliations. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this heightened rate warrants a review. It serves as a signal to ensure that these affiliations are a product of genuine collaboration rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit through practices like “affiliation shopping,” thereby safeguarding the transparency of the university's collaborative footprint.
With a Z-score of -0.616, the institution demonstrates a very low rate of retracted publications, indicating an absence of significant risk signals in this area. This performance aligns consistently with the low-risk national profile (Z-score -0.208), confirming a shared commitment to research quality. Retractions can be complex, but a rate this far below the global average strongly suggests that the institution's quality control and supervision mechanisms prior to publication are functioning effectively. This result points to a healthy integrity culture where potential errors are managed proactively, rather than a systemic vulnerability requiring corrective action.
The university exhibits a Z-score of -1.112, reflecting a very low rate of institutional self-citation and a clear strength in its integrity profile. This performance is particularly noteworthy as it effectively isolates the institution from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score 0.208). A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this exceptionally low value demonstrates that the institution successfully avoids the creation of scientific 'echo chambers.' It indicates a strong reliance on external scrutiny and validation from the global community, ensuring its academic influence is built on broad recognition rather than being inflated by internal dynamics.
Both the institution (Z-score -0.179) and the country (Z-score -0.328) operate at a low-risk level regarding publications in discontinued journals. However, the institution’s score is slightly higher, signaling an incipient vulnerability that warrants review before it escalates. A high proportion of output in such journals can be a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This minor elevation suggests a need to reinforce information literacy among researchers to ensure all scientific production is channeled through media that meet international ethical and quality standards, thus avoiding potential reputational risks associated with predatory or low-quality practices.
The institution's Z-score of 1.114 indicates a medium-risk level for hyper-authored output, a pattern that is also present nationally (Z-score 0.881). Crucially, the university's score is higher than the country's average, suggesting it has a greater exposure to this risk than its peers. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' fields, this elevated rate outside those contexts can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. This signal calls for a closer examination of authorship practices to distinguish between necessary massive collaborations and potentially inappropriate 'honorary' or political attributions.
With a Z-score of 1.875, the institution shows a medium-risk gap between its overall impact and the impact of research it leads, a value significantly higher than the national average of 0.809. This indicates a high exposure to the risk of dependency, suggesting that a substantial portion of the university's scientific prestige may be derived from collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. A wide positive gap like this signals a potential sustainability risk, prompting reflection on whether the institution's excellence metrics are the result of its own structural capacity or a strategic positioning in partnerships led by external entities.
The institution's Z-score of -1.190 is exceptionally low, indicating a near-total absence of hyperprolific authors and representing a significant strength. This result provides a clear point of preventive isolation, as the university does not replicate the medium-risk dynamics observed across the country (Z-score 0.288). Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This low indicator suggests the institution fosters a research environment that prioritizes quality and scientific integrity over sheer quantity, effectively mitigating risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution's rate of publication in its own journals is extremely low, signifying a state of total operational silence for this risk indicator. This performance is even stronger than the already very low national average (Z-score -0.139). This demonstrates an exemplary commitment to independent, external peer review and global dissemination channels. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the university effectively mitigates any potential conflicts of interest and risks of academic endogamy, ensuring its research is validated through standard competitive processes.
The university shows a very low rate of redundant output, with a Z-score of -0.674. This strong performance marks a clear point of preventive isolation from the national context, where this indicator is at a medium-risk level (Z-score 0.778). A high rate of bibliographic overlap often indicates data fragmentation or 'salami slicing' to artificially inflate productivity. The institution's low score suggests its research culture values the publication of coherent, significant studies over volume, thereby protecting the integrity of the scientific record and avoiding practices that overburden the peer-review system.
