| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.245 | -0.119 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.400 | -0.208 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.638 | 0.208 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.363 | -0.328 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
1.649 | 0.881 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.407 | 0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.393 | 0.288 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.139 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.627 | 0.778 |
Nagoya City University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.115 indicating performance that is generally superior to the national standard. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths in maintaining low rates of retracted output, redundant publications, and output in discontinued or institutional journals, effectively isolating itself from the medium-level risks prevalent across Japan in these areas. This solid foundation of research quality underpins its notable thematic strengths, as evidenced by its high national rankings in areas such as Agricultural and Biological Sciences (2nd in Japan), Psychology (21st), Economics, Econometrics and Finance (21st), and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (22nd) according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, this strong performance is contrasted by significant alerts in authorship practices, specifically a high rate of hyper-authored output, and medium-risk signals related to hyperprolific authors and a dependency on external collaborations for impact. While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, these vulnerabilities could challenge core academic values of transparency, accountability, and sustainable intellectual leadership. A strategic focus on reviewing and reinforcing authorship and collaboration policies will be crucial to align its operational practices with its evident thematic excellence and secure its long-term reputational integrity.
With a Z-score of -0.245, which is more favorable than the national average of -0.119, the institution demonstrates a prudent and rigorous approach to managing researcher affiliations. This suggests that its processes are more controlled than the national standard. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, the university's lower-than-average rate indicates a reduced risk of strategic practices like “affiliation shopping” designed to artificially inflate institutional credit, reflecting a clear and transparent policy regarding academic attribution.
The institution exhibits an exceptionally low Z-score of -0.400 in retracted publications, a signal of robust quality control that is even stronger than the low-risk national benchmark (-0.208). This low-profile consistency suggests that the university's pre-publication review and supervision mechanisms are highly effective. A rate significantly below the average indicates a healthy integrity culture, where potential methodological flaws or errors are addressed before dissemination, minimizing the need for post-publication corrections and reinforcing confidence in its scientific output.
Nagoya City University shows remarkable institutional resilience with a low Z-score of -0.638, starkly contrasting with the medium-risk national average of 0.208. This indicates that the institution's control mechanisms effectively mitigate the systemic risk of endogamy observed elsewhere in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university’s low rate demonstrates a strong outward-looking research culture that avoids 'echo chambers' and seeks validation from the global scientific community, ensuring its academic influence is based on external recognition rather than internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.363 is in the very low-risk category, outperforming the already low-risk national average of -0.328. This alignment with a low-risk environment, and even an improvement upon it, points to a consistent and well-informed practice in selecting publication venues. This result suggests that the institution has strong due diligence processes, effectively guiding its researchers away from channels that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards and thereby protecting its resources and reputation from predatory or low-quality practices.
A significant alert is raised by the institution's Z-score of 1.649, which is considerably higher than the medium-risk national average of 0.881. This finding suggests that the university not only reflects but actively amplifies a national vulnerability concerning 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 serves as a critical signal to investigate whether these patterns stem from legitimate massive collaborations or from questionable practices like 'honorary' authorship, which could compromise research integrity.
The institution presents a Z-score of 1.407, a medium-risk signal that indicates a higher exposure to this vulnerability compared to the national average of 0.809. This wide positive gap, where overall impact is significantly higher than the impact of research led internally, signals a potential sustainability risk. It suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be overly dependent on external partners rather than being structurally generated from within. This invites a strategic reflection on whether its high-impact metrics are the result of genuine internal capacity or a reliance on collaborations where the institution does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
With a Z-score of 0.393, the institution shows a higher propensity for this medium-risk indicator than the national average of 0.288. This suggests a greater exposure to the pressures that can lead to extreme publication volumes. While high productivity can be legitimate, an elevated rate of hyperprolific authors often challenges the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This signal alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metric performance over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution demonstrates total operational silence in this area, with a Z-score of -0.268 that is even lower than the country's very low-risk score of -0.139. This absence of risk signals, even below the national average, is a clear indicator of best practices. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the university effectively sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This commitment to external, independent peer review ensures its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels, maximizing its global visibility and credibility.
Nagoya City University achieves a state of preventive isolation with an exceptionally low Z-score of -0.627, in stark contrast to the medium-risk national environment (0.778). This demonstrates that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed nationally regarding publication fragmentation. A low rate of bibliographic overlap between publications indicates a culture that values substantial, coherent contributions over artificially inflating publication counts. This practice strengthens the scientific record and shows a commitment to producing significant new knowledge rather than prioritizing volume.
