| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.348 | -0.119 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.550 | -0.208 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.494 | 0.208 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.055 | -0.328 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
1.731 | 0.881 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.430 | 0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.397 | 0.288 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.139 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.682 | 0.778 |
Dokkyo Medical University demonstrates a commendable scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.156, which indicates a performance generally stronger than the global average. This robust standing is built upon exceptional control in critical areas, including a near-absence of retracted publications, redundant output, and publications in institutional journals, showcasing strong internal quality mechanisms. However, this positive overview is contrasted by a significant alert regarding the rate of hyper-authored output and medium-level risks associated with publications in discontinued journals and a dependency on external collaborations for impact. The university's strong research identity is evident in its notable SCImago Institutions Rankings in core fields such as Medicine; Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics; Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology; and Psychology. The institutional mission to cultivate trusted, empathetic professionals who value the human aspect of medicine is well-supported by its ethical research practices. Nevertheless, the identified risks, particularly those that could dilute individual accountability or suggest a lack of due diligence, may conflict with the core value of prioritizing substantive contribution over statistical achievements. By leveraging its demonstrated strengths in quality control, Dokkyo Medical University is well-positioned to address these specific vulnerabilities, further aligning its research practices with its distinguished educational mission and solidifying its reputation for excellence and integrity.
The institution's Z-score of -0.348 is notably lower than the national average of -0.119. This indicates a prudent and rigorous management of institutional affiliations compared to the national standard. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, this controlled rate suggests that the university effectively avoids practices like “affiliation shopping,” where affiliations are strategically used to inflate institutional credit, thereby ensuring that its collaborative footprint is transparent and accurately reflects genuine partnerships.
With a Z-score of -0.550, the institution shows a near-total absence of risk signals, a performance that aligns well with the low-risk national standard (Z-score of -0.208). This low-profile consistency is a strong positive indicator. Retractions can signal systemic failures in pre-publication quality control. The university's excellent result suggests that its mechanisms for ensuring methodological rigor and research integrity are robust and effective, preventing the kind of recurring malpractice or errors that would otherwise damage its scientific reputation.
The institution demonstrates remarkable resilience, with a Z-score of -0.494 in stark contrast to the country's medium-risk score of 0.208. This suggests that the university's control mechanisms successfully mitigate a systemic risk prevalent in Japan. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university’s low rate indicates it avoids the creation of scientific 'echo chambers' or the endogamous inflation of its impact. This performance confirms that the institution's academic influence is validated by the broader global community, not just by internal dynamics.
A moderate deviation from the national norm is observed, with the institution's Z-score at 0.055 while the country average is -0.328. This suggests the center is more sensitive to this risk factor than its peers and constitutes an alert regarding due diligence in selecting publication venues. A high proportion of work in such journals can expose the institution to severe reputational risks. This finding points to an urgent need to enhance information literacy among researchers to ensure scientific output is channeled through media that meet international ethical and quality standards, avoiding predatory or low-quality practices.
This indicator presents a critical alert, as the institution's Z-score of 1.731 significantly amplifies the vulnerability already present in the national system (Z-score of 0.881). In disciplines like high-energy physics, extensive author lists are legitimate. However, when this pattern appears outside those 'Big Science' contexts, a high Z-score can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This signal warrants an immediate internal review to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and potentially problematic 'honorary' or political authorship practices.
The institution shows high exposure to this risk, with a Z-score of 1.430 that is considerably higher than the national average of 0.809. This wide positive gap—where overall impact is high but the impact of research led by the institution is low—signals a potential sustainability risk. It suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be dependent on external partners rather than being structurally generated from within. This invites a strategic reflection on whether its high-impact metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
Dokkyo Medical University displays strong institutional resilience in this area, with a Z-score of -0.397, which is significantly better than the country's medium-risk score of 0.288. This indicates that the university's control mechanisms effectively mitigate the risks associated with extreme publication volumes. The data suggests a healthy balance between quantity and quality, successfully preventing potential issues such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without meaningful participation, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific record.
The institution's performance is exemplary, showing total operational silence on this indicator with a Z-score of -0.268, even lower than the country's already low average of -0.139. This demonstrates a clear commitment to external validation and avoidance of academic endogamy. By not relying on in-house journals, the university ensures its scientific production bypasses potential conflicts of interest and undergoes independent, competitive peer review, which in turn maximizes its global visibility and credibility.
With a Z-score of -0.682, the institution demonstrates a state of preventive isolation from a risk that is present at the national level (country Z-score of 0.778). This exceptionally low score indicates that the university's research culture does not support the practice of 'salami slicing'—dividing a single study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This commitment to publishing significant, coherent bodies of work upholds the integrity of scientific evidence and avoids overburdening the peer-review system.
