| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.577 | -0.119 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.390 | -0.208 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.581 | 0.208 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.359 | -0.328 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.810 | 0.881 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.222 | 0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.166 | 0.288 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.139 |
|
Redundant Output
|
2.460 | 0.778 |
Doshisha University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.217 indicating performance that is stronger than the global average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of retracted output, hyperprolific authorship, and publication in institutional or discontinued journals, demonstrating rigorous quality control and a commitment to external validation. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a tendency towards institutional self-citation, a notable gap between its overall research impact and the impact of its internally-led projects, and a pattern of redundant publication. These vulnerabilities, while moderate, could challenge the university's mission to develop "innovative curriculum and educational programs rich in both quality and diversity." According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's academic excellence is particularly prominent in fields such as Psychology, Earth and Planetary Sciences, Arts and Humanities, and Business, Management and Accounting. To fully align its practices with its mission, it is crucial to address the identified risks, as a reliance on internal validation or fragmented research outputs could hinder genuine innovation and dilute the perceived quality of its contributions. By focusing on fostering external collaboration and promoting research of greater substance, Doshisha University can further solidify its reputation for academic leadership and integrity.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is -0.577, which is considerably lower than the national average of -0.119. This demonstrates a prudent and rigorous approach to managing author affiliations, surpassing the standard practices observed across Japan. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the university's low rate suggests well-defined policies that prevent strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” ensuring that credit for research output is attributed with clarity and precision.
With an institutional Z-score of -0.390, the rate of retracted publications is exceptionally low and sits comfortably within the low-risk national context (Z-score: -0.208). This near-absence of risk signals is a strong testament to the university's effective quality control mechanisms. Retractions can sometimes reflect responsible error correction, but such a minimal rate suggests that systemic issues related to malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor are being successfully prevented before publication, safeguarding the institution's reputation and culture of integrity.
The university's Z-score of 0.581 for institutional self-citation is significantly higher than the national average of 0.208, indicating a greater exposure to this risk compared to its peers. While a degree of self-citation reflects the natural progression of research lines, this elevated rate warns of a potential for scientific isolation or the creation of 'echo chambers.' This dynamic could lead to an endogamous inflation of impact, where the institution's academic influence is magnified by internal validation rather than by broader recognition from the external scientific community, a practice that may require review to ensure sufficient external scrutiny.
The institution exhibits a very low Z-score of -0.359 in this area, which is consistent with the low-risk national environment (Z-score: -0.328). This result indicates that the university's researchers are effectively avoiding problematic dissemination channels. A high rate of publication in discontinued journals can be a critical alert for reputational risk, suggesting a failure in due diligence. The university's excellent performance here shows a strong commitment to channeling its scientific production through media that meet international ethical and quality standards, avoiding predatory or low-quality practices.
Doshisha University shows a Z-score of -0.810 for hyper-authored output, a figure that signals strong institutional resilience when compared to the moderate risk level seen nationally (Z-score: 0.881). This suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk prevalent in the country. While extensive author lists are normal in "Big Science," a low score outside these contexts, as seen here, indicates robust practices that discourage author list inflation and promote clear individual accountability, distinguishing legitimate collaboration from honorary or political authorship.
The institution's Z-score of 1.222 reveals a significant gap between its overall publication impact and the impact of research where it holds a leadership role, a value notably higher than the national average of 0.809. This suggests the university is more exposed than its national peers to a dependency on external partners for achieving high-impact research. A wide positive gap signals a potential sustainability risk, where scientific prestige may be more exogenous than structural. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether the institution's excellence metrics stem from its own internal capacity or from its positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
With an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.166, the university demonstrates a preventive isolation from the risk of hyperprolific authorship, a stark contrast to the moderate risk observed at the national level (Z-score: 0.288). This indicates that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics present in its wider environment. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's very low score in this area is a positive signal of a healthy balance between quantity and quality, effectively avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or the dilution of scientific integrity that can arise from prioritizing metrics over substance.
The university's Z-score of -0.268 for publications in its own journals is not only very low but also falls below the already minimal national average of -0.139. This signals a total operational silence in this risk area, reflecting an exemplary commitment to external, independent peer review. While in-house journals can be useful for local dissemination, an over-reliance on them can create conflicts of interest. The institution's practice of favoring external channels ensures its research undergoes standard competitive validation, enhances its global visibility, and avoids any perception of academic endogamy or the use of internal journals as 'fast tracks' for publication.
The institution's Z-score for redundant output is 2.460, a figure that indicates high exposure to this risk and is substantially greater than the national average of 0.778. This elevated value alerts to a potential practice of dividing coherent studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, often known as 'salami slicing.' Such a pattern, characterized by massive bibliographic overlap between publications, can distort the scientific evidence available in the field and overburden the peer-review system. This signal suggests a need to review publication strategies to ensure that the focus remains on generating significant new knowledge rather than on maximizing publication volume.
