| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.794 | -0.119 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.315 | -0.208 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.400 | 0.208 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.766 | -0.328 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.336 | 0.881 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
3.464 | 0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.647 | 0.288 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.139 |
|
Redundant Output
|
9.772 | 0.778 |
Hosei University presents a complex integrity profile, marked by a commendable adherence to foundational research ethics alongside significant vulnerabilities in publication strategy and impact attribution. With an overall score of 0.642, the institution demonstrates notable strengths in maintaining low rates of institutional self-citation, hyper-authorship, and retractions, suggesting robust internal controls that outperform national trends in these areas. These strengths provide a solid foundation for its academic mission. The university's excellence is reflected in its SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly in key thematic areas such as Energy (ranked 12th in Japan), Social Sciences (16th), Business, Management and Accounting (19th), and Engineering (19th). However, this profile is critically undermined by significant risks in redundant output (salami slicing) and a dependency on external collaborations for impact. These practices directly challenge the university's mission to foster "independent, creative citizens" and a genuine "pioneering spirit," as they prioritize publication volume over the "advancement of knowledge" and may misrepresent the institution's true internal capacity. To fully align its practices with its mission of building a "sustainable global community," Hosei University is advised to leverage its areas of integrity strength to implement targeted strategies that address these critical vulnerabilities, thereby ensuring its contributions are both impactful and unimpeachably sound.
With an institutional Z-score of -0.794, significantly lower than the national average of -0.119, Hosei University demonstrates a prudent and rigorous approach to academic collaboration. This result suggests that the university's processes for managing affiliations are more stringent than the national standard. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the university's low rate indicates a healthy focus on substantive collaborations rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit, ensuring that affiliations reflect genuine scientific contributions.
The university's Z-score for retracted output is -0.315, compared to the national average of -0.208. This indicates a prudent profile where the institution manages its quality control with more rigor than the national standard. Retractions can sometimes signify responsible supervision through the correction of honest errors. However, the university's low rate strongly suggests that its quality control mechanisms prior to publication are effective, minimizing the incidence of both unintentional errors and potential malpractice, and reflecting a solid culture of integrity in its research processes.
Hosei University exhibits strong institutional resilience in this area, with a Z-score of -0.400 in stark contrast to the national average of 0.208. This demonstrates that the university's control mechanisms effectively mitigate a systemic risk observed across the country. While some self-citation reflects the continuity of research, the university's very low rate indicates it successfully avoids the 'echo chambers' and endogamous impact inflation that can arise from excessive self-validation. This commitment to external scrutiny ensures its academic influence is earned through global community recognition, not internal dynamics.
The institution shows a moderate deviation from the national norm, with a Z-score of 0.766 against a country average of -0.328. This suggests a greater sensitivity to risk factors in publication channels compared to its peers. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination media. This score indicates that a portion of the university's scientific output is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, creating reputational risks and signaling an urgent need for enhanced information literacy to avoid predatory practices.
The university demonstrates institutional resilience with a Z-score of -0.336, well below the national average of 0.881. This indicates that its internal controls are successfully mitigating a risk that is more prevalent at the national level. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' a low score outside these contexts is a positive sign. It suggests that Hosei University effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and problematic 'honorary' authorship, thereby upholding individual accountability and transparency in its research contributions.
With a Z-score of 3.464, the university significantly accentuates a vulnerability present in the national system (Z-score 0.809). This high value is a critical alert, suggesting that the institution's scientific prestige is heavily dependent on external partners and may not be structural. A wide gap where global impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low signals a sustainability risk. It invites urgent reflection on whether the university's excellence metrics result from its own internal capacity and intellectual leadership or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it plays a secondary role.
The university's Z-score of 0.647 indicates a higher exposure to this risk compared to the national average of 0.288. This suggests the institution is more prone to showing alert signals related to extreme individual productivity. While high output can reflect leadership, extreme volumes challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator warns of potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
Hosei University shows total operational silence in this area, with a Z-score of -0.268, which is even lower than the country's very low average of -0.139. This absence of risk signals, below the national baseline, is an exemplary indicator of integrity. It demonstrates a strong commitment to avoiding conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, where an institution might bypass independent external peer review. By favoring external channels, the university ensures its research undergoes standard competitive validation, maximizing its global visibility and credibility.
This indicator represents a critical vulnerability, as the university's Z-score of 9.772 dramatically amplifies a risk that is only moderately present at the national level (Z-score 0.778). Such a high value is a severe alert for the practice of 'salami slicing,' where a coherent study is fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This practice distorts the available scientific evidence, overburdens the review system, and signals a culture that may be prioritizing volume of output over the generation of significant new knowledge, requiring immediate and decisive intervention.
