| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.229 | -0.119 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.381 | -0.208 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.356 | 0.208 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.367 | -0.328 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
1.017 | 0.881 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.114 | 0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.811 | 0.288 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.144 | -0.139 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.513 | 0.778 |
Hiroshima University demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in its overall risk score of 0.006. The institution exhibits exceptional control in critical areas such as the low rates of retracted output and publications in discontinued journals, underscoring a commitment to quality and responsible dissemination. These strengths provide a solid foundation for its academic mission. The University's leadership is particularly evident in several key disciplines, with SCImago Institutions Rankings placing it among the top 10 nationally in areas such as Business, Management and Accounting (3rd), Social Sciences (4th), Psychology (7th), and Arts and Humanities (8th). However, to fully align with its mission of fostering a "global, diversified, free, and peaceful society," attention should be directed towards moderate risks identified in institutional self-citation and the gap in impact between collaborative and institution-led research. These factors, if unmonitored, could subtly undermine the desired "international mindset" by fostering insularity or dependency. By proactively addressing these vulnerabilities, Hiroshima University can ensure its operational practices fully embody its core values, reinforcing its role as a global leader in creating "Science for Sustainable Development."
The institution shows a prudent approach to managing multiple affiliations, with a Z-score of -0.229, which is more rigorous than the national standard of -0.119. This indicates that the University's processes are well-controlled compared to its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this controlled rate suggests that the institution effectively avoids practices associated with “affiliation shopping” or the artificial inflation of institutional credit, maintaining a clear and transparent representation of its collaborative network.
The University demonstrates exceptional performance in research quality control, with a Z-score for retracted output of -0.381, significantly below the national average of -0.208. This absence of risk signals is consistent with the low-risk environment in Japan, but the University's rate is even lower, pointing to highly effective pre-publication review and supervision. Retractions can sometimes signify responsible error correction, but a near-zero rate like this confirms that the institution's integrity culture and methodological rigor are strong, preventing systemic failures in quality control and safeguarding its scientific record.
The institution's rate of self-citation presents a moderate risk, with a Z-score of 0.356 that is notably higher than the national average of 0.208. This suggests the University is more exposed to this risk factor than its peers in Japan. While a degree of self-citation is expected to reflect ongoing research lines, this elevated rate could signal a tendency towards scientific isolation or the formation of 'echo chambers.' It warns of a potential for endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence might be disproportionately validated by internal dynamics rather than broader recognition from the global scientific community, warranting a review of citation practices.
With a Z-score of -0.367 for publications in discontinued journals, the University shows excellent due diligence, performing even better than the low-risk national average of -0.328. This near-absence of risk signals aligns with the national standard for quality but demonstrates an even more robust selection process for publication venues. This strong performance indicates that the institution's researchers are well-informed and effectively avoid channeling their work through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, thus protecting the University from reputational damage and ensuring resources are not wasted on predatory or low-quality publishing practices.
The rate of hyper-authored publications at the University is a point of moderate concern, with a Z-score of 1.017 that exceeds the national average of 0.881. This indicates a higher-than-average exposure to the risks associated with extensive author lists. While large-scale collaborations are legitimate in "Big Science" fields, an elevated rate across the board can signal potential author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. This metric serves as an important signal to review authorship practices and distinguish between necessary massive collaborations and the inclusion of 'honorary' authors, ensuring transparency and fairness in credit attribution.
The University exhibits a significant gap between the impact of its total output and that of the research it leads, with a Z-score of 1.114, which is considerably higher than the national figure of 0.809. This heightened value suggests that the institution is more exposed to risks of impact dependency than its national counterparts. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led work is comparatively low, signals a potential sustainability risk. It suggests that a significant portion of the University's scientific prestige may be dependent on external collaborators rather than being structurally generated from within. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether its high-impact metrics reflect genuine internal capacity or a positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The presence of hyperprolific authors at the University is a moderate risk area, registering a Z-score of 0.811, which is substantially higher than the national average of 0.288. This indicates that the institution is significantly more prone to this phenomenon than its peers. While high productivity can reflect leadership in large consortia, extreme publication volumes by individuals can challenge the plausible limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator alerts to a potential imbalance between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or authorship granted without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metric inflation over the integrity of the scientific record.
The University's practice of publishing in its own journals is perfectly aligned with the secure national environment, showing a Z-score of -0.144, which is almost identical to the country average of -0.139. This integrity synchrony demonstrates a balanced and appropriate use of institutional publication channels. By avoiding over-reliance on its in-house journals, the institution effectively mitigates the risks of academic endogamy and potential conflicts of interest, ensuring that its scientific output predominantly undergoes independent, external peer review. This approach reinforces the global visibility and competitive validation of its research.
The University shows effective management of redundant publications, with a Z-score of 0.513, which is notably lower than the national average of 0.778. This indicates that while the risk of "salami slicing" is a systemic issue in the country, the institution is successfully moderating this practice. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate data fragmentation designed to artificially inflate productivity. By maintaining a lower rate than its peers, the University demonstrates a stronger commitment to publishing complete, significant studies over prioritizing volume, thereby contributing more robustly to the scientific record and avoiding overburdening the peer review system.
