| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.121 | -0.119 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.550 | -0.208 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.568 | 0.208 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.368 | -0.328 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
2.157 | 0.881 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.730 | 0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
2.958 | 0.288 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.139 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.212 | 0.778 |
Yokohama City University demonstrates a complex integrity profile, marked by exceptional strengths in procedural rigor alongside significant vulnerabilities in authorship and collaboration practices. With an overall score of 0.198, the institution showcases a commendable performance in areas such as the near-total absence of output in discontinued or institutional journals and a very low rate of retractions, indicating robust quality control and a commitment to external validation. These strengths are foundational. However, they are counterbalanced by critical alerts in the rates of hyper-authored output and hyperprolific authors, which significantly exceed national averages and suggest potential systemic pressures that prioritize quantity over accountability. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's scientific strengths are concentrated in key areas like Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (ranked 13th in Japan), Agricultural and Biological Sciences (15th), and both Medicine and Physics and Astronomy (16th). To fully align with its mission to "cultivate human resources with international perspective and creativity who will proactively take the lead," it is crucial to address the identified risks. Practices that dilute individual accountability or suggest a dependency on external leadership could undermine the very creativity and proactive leadership the university aims to foster. By leveraging its proven capacity for procedural excellence to develop clearer authorship and collaboration guidelines, Yokohama City University can ensure its impressive scientific output is built upon an unshakeable foundation of integrity, fully realizing its vision of leadership.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.121, which contrasts with the national average of -0.119. This moderate deviation indicates that the university shows a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, a rate that is notably higher than the country's more conservative standard warrants a review. It may signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," a practice that, if unmonitored, could diverge from standard academic collaboration norms observed elsewhere in the country.
With a Z-score of -0.550, significantly lower than the national average of -0.208, the university demonstrates an exemplary record in this area. This low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with and improves upon the national standard, points to highly effective quality control mechanisms. Retractions can sometimes signify responsible supervision through the correction of honest errors, but a near-zero rate suggests that the institution's pre-publication review processes are robust, preventing systemic failures and reinforcing a strong culture of methodological rigor and scientific integrity.
The university's Z-score of -0.568 stands in stark contrast to the national average of 0.208, showcasing remarkable institutional resilience. While the national context shows a medium tendency towards practices that could create 'echo chambers,' the university's control mechanisms appear to effectively mitigate these systemic risks. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this low score confirms that the institution's work is validated by the broader global community, avoiding the risk of endogamous impact inflation and demonstrating that its academic influence is earned through external scrutiny, not internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.368, compared to the national average of -0.328, reflects a consistent and diligent approach to selecting publication venues. This absence of risk signals, which is in line with the low-risk national environment, is a positive indicator of institutional governance. It suggests that researchers are well-informed and exercise excellent due diligence, effectively avoiding predatory or low-quality journals. This protects the university from reputational damage and ensures that its scientific output is channeled through credible media that meet international ethical and quality standards.
With a Z-score of 2.157, the university shows a significant elevation of risk compared to the national medium-risk average of 0.881. This pattern suggests an accentuation of a vulnerability already present in the national system, raising a critical alert. In fields outside of 'Big Science,' where extensive author lists are not structurally necessary, such a high rate can indicate systemic author list inflation. This practice dilutes individual accountability and transparency, creating an urgent need for internal review to distinguish between legitimate massive collaboration and the potential prevalence of 'honorary' or political authorship practices.
The university's Z-score of 1.730 indicates high exposure to this risk, surpassing the national average of 0.809. Although both the institution and the country show a medium-risk pattern, the university is more prone to this specific alert. 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 institution's scientific prestige may be overly dependent and exogenous, stemming from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership. This invites a strategic reflection on how to build more structural, internal capacity for high-impact research.
The institution's Z-score of 2.958 is a significant red flag, drastically amplifying a vulnerability that is only moderately present at the national level (0.288). This accentuation of risk is a critical concern, as extreme individual publication volumes challenge the plausible limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator alerts to potential systemic imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to severe risks such as coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or the assignment of authorship without real participation. An urgent review is needed to ensure that institutional pressures are not prioritizing metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The university exhibits total operational silence in this area, with a Z-score of -0.268 that is even lower than the country's already minimal average of -0.139. This is a clear strength, demonstrating an unequivocal commitment to independent, external peer review. By avoiding reliance on in-house journals, the institution eliminates potential conflicts of interest where it might act as both judge and party. This practice enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, confirming that its scientific production competes and is validated on the global stage rather than through internal 'fast tracks'.
With a Z-score of -0.212, the university demonstrates strong institutional resilience against a risk that is more common nationally (Z-score of 0.778). While the national context shows a medium risk of 'salami slicing,' the university's low score indicates that its researchers prioritize the publication of coherent, significant studies over the fragmentation of data into minimal publishable units. This approach strengthens the scientific record, avoids overburdening the peer-review system, and reflects a culture that values the generation of substantive new knowledge over the artificial inflation of productivity metrics.
