| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.668 | -0.119 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.587 | -0.208 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.148 | 0.208 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.196 | -0.328 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.998 | 0.881 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.408 | 0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.160 | 0.288 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.139 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.143 | 0.778 |
Asahikawa Medical University presents a robust overall profile in scientific integrity, with a global risk score of -0.355 that indicates performance superior to the international average. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths in areas critical to research quality, showing very low risk in Retracted Output, Institutional Self-Citation, Hyperprolific Authors, and Output in Institutional Journals. These results signal a strong culture of external validation and a healthy balance between productivity and quality. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a medium risk in Hyper-Authored Output, a dependency on external leadership for research impact, and signals of Redundant Output. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's academic strengths are concentrated in key medical fields, including Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, and Medicine. While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, the identified medium-risk areas could challenge universal academic values of transparency, accountability, and sustainable excellence. Addressing these vulnerabilities will be crucial to ensuring that the institution's recognized thematic leadership is built upon a foundation of unquestionable scientific integrity. By leveraging its solid base to mitigate these specific risks, Asahikawa Medical University can further solidify its reputation as a leading institution committed to ethical and impactful research.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.668, a figure that indicates a lower risk profile than the national average of -0.119. This demonstrates a prudent and rigorous approach to managing author affiliations. The university's performance is stronger than the already low-risk national standard, suggesting that its internal processes effectively control for practices like "affiliation shopping." While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of collaboration, the university’s data shows no signs of their strategic use to artificially inflate institutional credit, reflecting a well-governed and transparent system of academic attribution.
With a Z-score of -0.587, the institution shows a very low rate of retracted publications, performing significantly better than the national average of -0.208. This excellent result indicates that the university's pre-publication quality control mechanisms are robust and effective. Retractions can be complex, but this near-absence of risk signals suggests that the institution's integrity culture successfully prevents systemic methodological failures or recurring malpractice. The data points towards a responsible research environment where any corrections are likely the result of honest scientific supervision rather than a vulnerability in research practices.
The university demonstrates an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.148 in institutional self-citation, starkly contrasting with the medium-risk national average of 0.208. This result indicates that the institution effectively avoids the risk dynamics prevalent in its national environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university's performance shows a clear commitment to external validation and global engagement, steering clear of scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' This strong outward focus ensures its academic influence is derived from broad recognition by the international community, not from endogamous impact inflation.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is -0.196, which, while representing a low risk, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.328. This minimal deviation suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants review before it can escalate. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals can be a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. Although the current level is not alarming, this signal indicates a need to reinforce information literacy among researchers to ensure institutional resources are not inadvertently channeled towards low-quality or predatory media, thereby protecting the university's reputation.
With a Z-score of 0.998, the institution shows a medium risk level for hyper-authorship, a rate slightly higher than the national average of 0.881. This suggests the university is more exposed to this risk factor than its peers. Outside of "Big Science" contexts where large author lists are standard, this pattern can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability and transparency. The university should examine whether these instances correspond to legitimate massive collaborations or if they reflect "honorary" authorship practices that need to be addressed to maintain the integrity of its research attributions.
The university exhibits a Z-score of 1.408, a medium-risk value that is notably higher than the national average of 0.809. This indicates a high exposure to dependency on external collaborations for its scientific impact. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a sustainability risk. This result suggests that the institution's scientific prestige may be more exogenous than structural, inviting a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics stem from genuine internal capacity or from a supporting role in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership.
The institution's Z-score of -1.160 is in the very low-risk category, positioning it far more favorably than the national average of 0.288, which falls into the medium-risk range. This outstanding result shows that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and point to risks like coercive authorship or prioritizing metrics over scientific integrity. The university's performance indicates a healthy academic culture that values quality over sheer quantity, effectively preventing practices that could compromise the research record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the university demonstrates a near-total absence of risk in this area, performing even better than the country's very low-risk average of -0.139. This operational silence is a strong positive signal. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, allowing research to bypass independent external peer review. The university's data confirms its commitment to global standards, ensuring its scientific production is validated through competitive, external channels, thereby maximizing its international visibility and credibility.
The institution's Z-score of 0.143 places it in the medium-risk category, but its performance is considerably better than the national average of 0.778. This suggests a differentiated management approach, where the university successfully moderates a risk that is more common at the national level. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate data fragmentation or 'salami slicing' to artificially inflate productivity. While some signals of this practice exist, the institution's relative control suggests a stronger institutional focus on publishing significant, coherent studies rather than prioritizing volume, a practice that protects the integrity of the scientific record.
