| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.072 | -0.119 |
|
Retracted Output
|
2.512 | -0.208 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.310 | 0.208 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.545 | -0.328 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.257 | 0.881 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.452 | 0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | 0.288 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.139 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.585 | 0.778 |
Hoshi University presents a dual profile in scientific integrity, combining areas of exceptional governance with specific, high-priority vulnerabilities. With an overall score of 0.593, the institution demonstrates robust control over practices such as publication in discontinued journals, dependency on external collaborations for impact, and the prevalence of hyperprolific authors, indicating a solid foundation of internal research ethics. However, this is contrasted by a critical alert in the Rate of Retracted Output and notable risks in multiple affiliations and institutional self-citation. These challenges could potentially undermine the credibility of the university's recognized thematic strengths, particularly in Chemistry, where it holds a top-30 national rank according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, as well as in Agricultural and Biological Sciences and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology. Although the specific institutional mission was not provided for this analysis, such significant integrity risks are fundamentally at odds with the universal academic goals of excellence, transparency, and social responsibility. By leveraging its clear strengths in research governance, Hoshi University has the opportunity to conduct a targeted review of its pre-publication quality control and authorship policies, thereby reinforcing its scientific leadership and ensuring its contributions are both impactful and unimpeachable.
The institution's Z-score of 1.072 shows a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.119, indicating a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers in Japan. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, a disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” This divergence from the national norm suggests a need to review affiliation policies to ensure they reflect genuine collaboration rather than primarily metric-driven strategies.
The institution's Z-score of 2.512 represents a severe discrepancy when compared to the national average of -0.208. This atypical level of risk activity requires a deep integrity assessment. Retractions are complex events, and while some may result from the honest correction of unintentional errors, a Z-score this high suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This rate, significantly above the norm, alerts to a critical vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that warrants immediate qualitative verification by management.
With a Z-score of 1.310, the institution demonstrates higher exposure to this risk compared to the national average of 0.208, suggesting it is more prone to showing alert signals than its environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of established research lines. Nonetheless, this disproportionately high rate can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This value warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than global community recognition.
The institution's Z-score of -0.545, compared to the national average of -0.328, demonstrates an exemplary commitment to selecting high-quality publication venues. This absence of risk signals is fully consistent with, and even improves upon, the low-risk national standard. This strong performance indicates that the institution's researchers exercise excellent due diligence in choosing dissemination channels, effectively avoiding predatory or low-quality practices and protecting the university's reputational integrity.
The institution's Z-score of -0.257 stands in stark contrast to the national average of 0.881, showcasing significant institutional resilience. This suggests that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk that is more prevalent across the country. By maintaining a low rate of hyper-authored output, the institution demonstrates a commitment to ensuring author lists reflect genuine contributions, thereby upholding individual accountability and transparency in its research practices.
The institution's Z-score of -1.452 indicates a strong and positive performance, especially when compared to the national average of 0.809. This score reflects a state of preventive isolation, where the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics of impact dependency observed elsewhere in the country. The very low gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and generated by its own intellectual leadership, not dependent on external partners. This is a clear indicator of sustainable, high-quality, and autonomous research capacity.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution effectively insulates itself from the risk of hyperprolific authorship, a trend more visible in the national context (Z-score of 0.288). This demonstrates that the university's culture does not encourage publication volumes that challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The absence of this risk signal points to a healthy balance between quantity and quality, steering clear of practices like coercive or honorary authorship and prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268, which is even lower than the national average of -0.139, signifies a state of total operational silence in this risk area. This confirms an almost complete absence of reliance on in-house journals for disseminating research. By prioritizing external, independent peer-reviewed channels, the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production is validated competitively on a global stage and maximizing its international visibility.
The institution's Z-score of 0.585, while indicating a medium risk, is notably lower than the national average of 0.778. This suggests a differentiated management approach, where the university successfully moderates a risk that appears more common across the country. Although some signals of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing' exist, the institution shows more control than its peers. Nevertheless, this practice of dividing studies into minimal publishable units to inflate productivity warrants continued monitoring to ensure that the focus remains on publishing significant new knowledge rather than on volume.
