| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.637 | -0.119 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.184 | -0.208 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.239 | 0.208 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.392 | -0.328 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.801 | 0.881 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.435 | 0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.205 | 0.288 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.139 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.635 | 0.778 |
Sophia University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.363, indicating performance significantly better than the global average. The institution demonstrates exceptional control in areas related to authorship practices and the selection of publication venues, with very low risk signals in hyperprolific authorship, output in institutional journals, and publications in discontinued journals. These strengths are counterbalanced by moderate alerts in institutional self-citation and redundant output, which suggest areas for proactive monitoring. This strong integrity framework supports the university's notable academic standing, particularly in fields such as Economics, Econometrics and Finance (ranked 19th in Japan), Arts and Humanities (22nd), and Business, Management and Accounting (28th), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. The institution's commitment to its Jesuit educational philosophy, "Men and Women for Others, with Others," is largely reflected in its responsible research practices. However, the moderate risks identified could challenge the "with Others" principle by implying a degree of academic insularity. Strengthening policies in these specific areas will ensure that the university's operational conduct fully aligns with its mission of excellence and social responsibility, reinforcing its position as a leader in ethical research.
The institution shows a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.637, which is notably lower than the national average of -0.119. This suggests that the university manages its affiliation processes with greater rigor than the national standard. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution's low rate indicates a well-controlled environment, effectively avoiding practices that could be perceived as strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.”
With a Z-score of -0.184, closely aligned with the national average of -0.208, the institution's rate of retracted output falls within the range of statistical normality. This level suggests that the university's quality control and supervision mechanisms are functioning as expected for its context. Retractions are complex events, and this score indicates a healthy process of scientific correction rather than a systemic failure in pre-publication quality control, which would otherwise suggest recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is 0.239, which is consistent with the national average of 0.208. This alignment points to a systemic pattern, where the observed risk level likely reflects shared academic practices across Japan. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this medium-level indicator warrants attention, as disproportionately high rates can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' It suggests a potential risk of endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence might be oversized by internal dynamics rather than broader community recognition.
Sophia University demonstrates low-profile consistency in its selection of publication venues, with a Z-score of -0.392 compared to the country's score of -0.328. The institution's very low risk level, which is even better than the low-risk national standard, indicates that its researchers are effectively avoiding journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This absence of risk signals shows strong due diligence and protects the university from the reputational damage associated with 'predatory' or low-quality publishing practices.
The institution exhibits significant resilience against national trends in hyper-authorship, with a Z-score of -0.801 in stark contrast to the country's medium-risk score of 0.881. This discrepancy suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk prevalent in its environment. The university's low rate indicates a culture that successfully distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and potentially problematic practices like 'honorary' or political authorship, thereby upholding individual accountability and transparency.
With a Z-score of -0.435, the institution shows a healthy balance between its overall impact and the impact of research under its direct leadership, especially when compared to the national average of 0.809. This demonstrates strong institutional resilience, indicating that the university is not overly reliant on external partners for its scientific prestige. A low gap suggests that excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, mitigating the sustainability risks associated with a high dependence on collaborations where the institution does not lead.
The university shows a state of preventive isolation regarding hyperprolific authorship, with an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.205, while the national context presents a medium-risk score of 0.288. This indicates that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment, maintaining a culture that prioritizes quality over sheer volume. By avoiding extreme individual publication volumes, the university effectively sidesteps risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, thus protecting the integrity of its scientific record.
In the area of publishing in its own journals, the institution demonstrates total operational silence with a Z-score of -0.268, which is even lower than the already minimal national average of -0.139. This absence of risk signals, even when compared to a low-risk environment, is exemplary. It indicates that the university avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review and achieves global visibility rather than relying on internal 'fast tracks'.
The institution's Z-score for redundant output is 0.635, a medium-risk value that is nevertheless lower than the national average of 0.778. This suggests a differentiated management approach, where the university is actively moderating a risk that appears to be more common at the national level. This indicator serves as a moderate alert for the practice of 'salami slicing'—dividing a single study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. The university's relative control is positive, but continued monitoring is advisable to ensure that research contributions prioritize significant new knowledge over volume, thereby preventing distortion of the scientific evidence and overburdening of the review system.
