| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.485 | -0.119 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.409 | -0.208 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.729 | 0.208 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.415 | -0.328 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
1.907 | 0.881 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
2.233 | 0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
1.267 | 0.288 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.139 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.605 | 0.778 |
Tokyo Women's Medical University presents a robust and generally well-aligned integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.014 that reflects a performance in close synchrony with the national standard. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths in maintaining low-risk practices, particularly in its minimal rates of retracted output, publication in discontinued journals, and redundant publications, indicating strong pre-publication quality controls and a culture of external validation. However, this solid foundation is contrasted by significant alerts in authorship practices, including a high rate of hyper-authored output and hyperprolific authors, alongside a notable gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work where it holds intellectual leadership. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university holds prominent national positions in key thematic areas, including Medicine (ranked 32nd in Japan), Psychology (38th), and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (41st). While the institution's specific mission was not localized for this analysis, the identified risks in authorship and impact dependency could challenge core values of research excellence and leadership. Addressing these vulnerabilities is crucial to ensure that institutional prestige is built upon a foundation of transparent, accountable, and internally-driven scientific capacity. By strategically reinforcing its authorship policies and fostering intellectual leadership, Tokyo Women's Medical University can fully leverage its thematic strengths and solidify its reputation for scientific integrity.
The institution maintains a prudent profile regarding multiple affiliations, with a Z-score of -0.485, which is more rigorous than the national standard of -0.119. This indicates that the university's processes are well-managed and less prone to risk signals in this area compared to its national peers. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of researcher mobility or partnerships, this controlled rate suggests the institution effectively avoids practices that could be perceived as strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," thereby reinforcing the clarity and integrity of its collaborative footprint.
With a Z-score of -0.409, the institution demonstrates a very low rate of retracted publications, aligning well with the low-risk national environment (Z-score: -0.208). This low-profile consistency suggests that the university’s quality control and supervision mechanisms are robust and effective. Retractions can sometimes signify responsible error correction, but an exceptionally low rate like this points to a strong culture of integrity and methodological rigor that successfully prevents systemic failures prior to publication, safeguarding its scientific reputation.
The university exhibits strong institutional resilience against the risk of excessive self-citation. Its Z-score of -0.729 is significantly lower than the national average of 0.208, indicating that its control mechanisms effectively mitigate a systemic risk observed across the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but by maintaining this low rate, the institution avoids creating scientific 'echo chambers' or inflating its impact through endogamous practices. This demonstrates a commitment to external validation and ensures its academic influence is a reflection of genuine recognition by the global scientific community.
The institution’s performance in selecting publication venues is exemplary, with a Z-score of -0.415, which is even lower than the already low-risk national average of -0.328. This low-profile consistency underscores a diligent approach to academic dissemination. A high proportion of output in discontinued journals can be a critical alert for reputational risk, but this very low score confirms that the university's researchers are successfully channeling their work through credible media that meet international ethical and quality standards, avoiding predatory or low-quality practices.
A significant alert is noted in the rate of hyper-authored output, where the institution's Z-score of 1.907 markedly amplifies a vulnerability already present in the national system (Z-score: 0.881). This suggests a tendency toward author list inflation that exceeds the national norm. While extensive author lists are standard in "Big Science," a high score outside these contexts can dilute individual accountability and transparency. This finding serves as a critical signal to review authorship policies to distinguish between necessary large-scale collaboration and potential "honorary" authorship practices that could compromise research integrity.
The institution shows high exposure to risks associated with impact dependency, with a Z-score of 2.233, substantially higher than the national average of 0.809. This wide positive gap indicates that while the university's overall impact is high, the impact of research led by its own authors is comparatively low, suggesting a sustainability risk. This high value warns that its scientific prestige may be overly dependent on external partners rather than its own structural capacity. It invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics stem from genuine internal innovation or from a positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The university demonstrates a high exposure to risks related to hyperprolific authors, with a Z-score of 1.267 that is considerably above the national average of 0.288. This indicates that the institution is more prone than its peers to hosting authors with extreme publication volumes. While high productivity can reflect leadership, publication rates exceeding 50 articles a year challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator 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 metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
In the area of publishing in its own journals, the institution operates with total silence, showing an absence of risk signals even below the national average. Its Z-score of -0.268 is lower than the country's score of -0.139, both of which are in the very low-risk category. This performance indicates a strong preference for external, independent peer review over internal channels. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the university effectively mitigates potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production is validated through standard competitive processes and enhancing its global visibility.
The institution demonstrates a clear preventive isolation from the risk of redundant publications, a practice more common at the national level. With a Z-score of -0.605, it stands in stark contrast to the country's medium-risk average of 0.778. This very low rate indicates that the practice of fragmenting a coherent study into minimal publishable units, or "salami slicing," to artificially inflate productivity is not a concern. This reflects a commendable focus on producing substantive, significant new knowledge rather than prioritizing publication volume, thereby strengthening the integrity and value of its scientific contributions.
