| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.303 | -0.119 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.456 | -0.208 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.107 | 0.208 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.435 | -0.328 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.532 | 0.881 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
2.288 | 0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | 0.288 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.139 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.106 | 0.778 |
Japan Women's University demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.334 indicating performance that is significantly better than the global average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptional control over publication quality, evidenced by very low rates of retractions, hyperprolific authorship, and output in discontinued or institutional journals. These results suggest a culture that prioritizes methodological rigor and external validation over sheer volume. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a medium-risk level for institutional self-citation and, most notably, a significant gap between the impact of its total output and that of research where it holds intellectual leadership. Thematically, the institution shows a strong position in Agricultural and Biological Sciences, as per SCImago Institutions Rankings data. While a specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, the current integrity profile strongly supports universal academic values of excellence and responsibility. Nevertheless, the identified dependency on external collaboration for impact could pose a long-term challenge to its autonomy and reputation as a leading research entity. A strategic focus on fostering internal research leadership will be crucial to solidifying its scientific standing and ensuring its contributions are both impactful and sustainable.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.303, which is more favorable than the national average of -0.119. This prudent profile suggests that the university manages its affiliation declarations with greater rigor than the national standard. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this controlled rate indicates that the institution is effectively avoiding practices that could be perceived as strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," thereby maintaining clarity and transparency in its collaborative footprint.
With a Z-score of -0.456, the institution demonstrates an almost complete absence of risk signals, a figure significantly better than the national score of -0.208. This low-profile consistency aligns with and improves upon the national standard, suggesting that the university's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are exceptionally robust. This result points not to a lack of activity, but to a mature culture of integrity and responsible supervision that effectively prevents the systemic failures or recurring malpractice that a higher rate would imply, safeguarding its scientific reputation.
The university's Z-score for this indicator is 0.107, while the national average is 0.208. Although both fall within a medium-risk range, the institution's lower score points to differentiated management that successfully moderates a risk that appears more common across the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university appears to be effectively mitigating the danger of creating scientific 'echo chambers.' This suggests a healthier balance between building on internal research lines and seeking external scrutiny, thus avoiding the endogamous impact inflation that can arise when an institution's work is not sufficiently validated by the global community.
The institution's Z-score of -0.435 is notably lower than the national average of -0.328, reflecting a consistent and very low-risk profile. This performance indicates that the institution's researchers exercise excellent due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. By avoiding journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, the university protects itself from severe reputational risks and ensures its research resources are not wasted on 'predatory' or low-quality practices, demonstrating a high level of information literacy within its academic community.
With a Z-score of -0.532, the institution shows a low-risk profile that contrasts sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.881. This demonstrates significant institutional resilience, as internal control mechanisms appear to be successfully mitigating a systemic risk present in the country. Outside of 'Big Science' contexts where large author lists are normal, this controlled rate suggests the university effectively discourages author list inflation, thereby preserving individual accountability and distinguishing legitimate massive collaboration from 'honorary' or political authorship practices.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 2.288, a figure indicating high exposure and significantly higher than the national average of 0.809. This wide positive gap signals a potential sustainability risk, suggesting that the institution's scientific prestige is heavily dependent on external partners rather than being structurally generated from within. While collaboration is vital, this value indicates that its excellence metrics may result more from strategic positioning in partnerships where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This warrants strategic reflection on how to build and showcase its own internal capacity to lead high-impact research.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, especially when compared to the national medium-risk score of 0.288. This demonstrates a clear preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. Such a low rate indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, suggesting the institutional culture effectively discourages practices like coercive authorship or assigning credit without real participation. This focus on meaningful intellectual contribution over inflated metrics is a hallmark of a strong integrity framework.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution operates with what can be described as total operational silence in this area, performing even better than the already low national average of -0.139. This result signals a strong commitment to independent, external peer review and global visibility. By avoiding dependence on in-house journals, the university circumvents potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels rather than internal 'fast tracks'.
The institution's Z-score of -0.106 places it in a low-risk category, showcasing institutional resilience against a national trend that registers a medium-risk score of 0.778. This indicates that the university's policies or academic culture effectively discourage the practice of 'salami slicing,' where a single study is fragmented into minimal publishable units to inflate productivity. By promoting the publication of coherent, significant new knowledge over sheer volume, the institution upholds the integrity of the scientific record and avoids overburdening the peer review system.
