| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.080 | -0.119 |
|
Retracted Output
|
1.620 | -0.208 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.669 | 0.208 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.469 | -0.328 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.257 | 0.881 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.922 | 0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | 0.288 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.139 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.792 | 0.778 |
Kyoto Prefectural University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, characterized by exceptional governance in several key areas, yet marked by critical vulnerabilities that require immediate strategic attention. With an overall integrity score of 0.305, the institution demonstrates significant strengths, particularly in its minimal rates of hyperprolific authorship, publication in discontinued journals, and use of institutional journals, indicating a strong culture of external validation and responsible authorship. These strengths are complemented by a resilient posture against national trends in self-citation and hyper-authorship. However, this positive outlook is seriously challenged by a severe discrepancy in the Rate of Retracted Output and high exposure in Redundant Output (Salami Slicing) and dependency on external research leadership. The university's recognized academic strengths, as highlighted by SCImago Institutions Rankings data in fields such as Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, and Environmental Science, provide a solid foundation for its mission. Nevertheless, the identified risks, especially concerning retractions, directly contradict the mission's emphasis on the "highest standards of research," "ethical sense," and being "fully accountable." To safeguard its reputation as a "base of knowledge" and fulfill its social responsibility, it is imperative that the university implements a targeted review of its pre-publication quality control processes and authorship guidelines, ensuring that its operational practices fully align with its aspirational goals of excellence and integrity.
The institution's activity in this area (Z-score: -0.080) is in close alignment with the national standard (Z-score: -0.119), reflecting a level of risk that is statistically normal for its context and size. This synchrony suggests that the university's collaboration patterns are consistent with prevailing national practices. While multiple affiliations can sometimes be used to inflate institutional credit, the current data indicates that the university's engagement in such collaborations is managed within expected and legitimate parameters, without showing signals of strategic “affiliation shopping.”
A severe discrepancy exists between the institution's performance and the national benchmark, demanding an urgent and deep integrity assessment. The university's Z-score of 1.620 is a critical outlier when compared to the low-risk national average of -0.208. Retractions are complex, but a rate significantly higher than the global average serves as a powerful alert. This suggests that the quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically, indicating a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture that could stem from recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor, requiring immediate qualitative verification by management.
The university demonstrates notable institutional resilience, effectively mitigating systemic risks that are more prevalent at the national level. With a Z-score of -0.669, the institution maintains a very low rate of self-citation, in stark contrast to the country's medium-risk score of 0.208. This performance indicates that robust internal control mechanisms are in place, preventing the formation of scientific 'echo chambers.' By ensuring its work is validated by the broader external community, the university avoids the risk of endogamous impact inflation, where academic influence is oversized by internal dynamics rather than global recognition.
The institution exhibits low-profile consistency in its selection of publication venues, with an absence of risk signals that aligns perfectly with the national standard. The university's Z-score of -0.469 is safely in the very low-risk category, comparable to the country's score of -0.328. This indicates a strong and consistent due diligence process for selecting dissemination channels, effectively protecting the institution from the severe reputational risks associated with publishing in 'predatory' or low-quality journals that do not meet international ethical standards.
The institution displays effective institutional resilience, acting as a filter against a risk dynamic present in its national environment. While the country shows a medium tendency towards hyper-authorship (Z-score: 0.881), the university maintains a low-risk Z-score of -0.257. This suggests that its governance and authorship policies successfully distinguish between necessary massive collaboration, common in 'Big Science,' and questionable practices like 'honorary' or political authorship, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency in its research output.
The institution shows a high exposure to this risk, with a Z-score (0.922) that is more pronounced than the national average (0.809). This indicates that the university is more prone than its peers to showing alert signals in this area. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a potential sustainability risk. This suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be overly dependent and exogenous, inviting reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership.
The university achieves a state of preventive isolation, demonstrating a complete disconnection from the risk dynamics observed in its environment. Its exceptionally low Z-score of -1.413 contrasts sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.288. This indicates that the institution does not replicate the national trend towards extreme individual publication volumes. By avoiding this, the university effectively mitigates the associated risks, such as imbalances between quantity and quality, coercive authorship, or the assignment of authorship without real participation, thereby prioritizing scientific integrity over inflated metrics.
In this indicator, the institution demonstrates total operational silence, with an absence of risk signals that is even more pronounced than the national average. The university's Z-score of -0.268 is significantly lower than the country's already low score of -0.139. This exemplary performance highlights a strong commitment to external, independent peer review. By avoiding dependence on in-house journals, the university circumvents potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels and enhancing its global visibility.
The institution exhibits high exposure to this risk, indicating it is more prone to showing alert signals than its national environment. The university's Z-score of 1.792 is considerably higher than the country's medium-risk average of 0.778. This elevated value warns of a potential tendency to engage in 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This dynamic not only overburdens the peer review system but also distorts the available scientific evidence, prioritizing publication volume over the contribution of significant new knowledge.
