| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.774 | -0.119 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.663 | -0.208 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.544 | 0.208 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.383 | -0.328 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
3.316 | 0.881 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.087 | 0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
1.026 | 0.288 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.139 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.006 | 0.778 |
Hyogo College of Medicine demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.084 that indicates a performance largely aligned with national and international standards. The institution exhibits significant strengths in its quality control and dissemination practices, evidenced by very low risk signals in Retracted Output, Output in Discontinued Journals, and Output in Institutional Journals. These results point to a culture of rigorous external validation and responsible scientific conduct. However, this solid foundation is contrasted by notable vulnerabilities in authorship practices, particularly a significant risk in Hyper-Authored Output and medium risks related to Hyperprolific Authors and a dependency on external intellectual leadership. These challenges, if unaddressed, could subtly undermine the institution's mission to achieve a "Profound Scientific Understanding of Human Beings" by potentially prioritizing metric volume over transparent and accountable contributions. The College's strong reputation, reflected in its SCImago Institutions Rankings in core areas like Medicine, Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, Chemistry, and Pharmacology, provides a powerful platform from which to address these issues. By proactively refining its authorship policies and fostering greater internal research leadership, Hyogo College of Medicine can ensure its operational practices fully embody its commitment to excellence and societal welfare.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.774, which is notably lower than the national average of -0.119. This comparison suggests that the College manages its affiliation processes with more rigor than the national standard. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this prudent profile indicates that the institution is effectively avoiding practices that could be perceived as strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," thereby maintaining clear and transparent attributions for its scientific output.
With a Z-score of -0.663, the institution shows a near-total absence of risk signals, a positive finding that aligns with the low-risk national standard (Z-score of -0.208). Retractions can be complex, sometimes resulting from honest error correction. However, this extremely low rate is a strong indicator of effective pre-publication quality control mechanisms. It suggests that the institution's integrity culture and methodological rigor are functioning properly, preventing the systemic failures that can lead to a high volume of retracted work and safeguarding its scientific reputation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.544 contrasts sharply with the national average of 0.208, demonstrating significant institutional resilience. While the national context shows a moderate tendency toward internal citation, the College appears to have control mechanisms that mitigate this systemic risk. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's low rate indicates it successfully avoids the formation of scientific 'echo chambers.' This commitment to external validation ensures its academic influence is driven by global community recognition rather than being inflated by endogamous or internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.383 is very low and consistent with the low-risk national environment (Z-score of -0.328). This absence of risk signals indicates that the College's researchers are exercising strong due diligence in selecting dissemination channels for their work. By effectively avoiding journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, the institution protects its resources and reputation from the severe risks associated with 'predatory' or low-quality publishing practices, reflecting a high degree of information literacy within its research community.
A critical alert is raised by the institution's Z-score of 3.316, which significantly exceeds and amplifies the moderate vulnerability present in the national system (Z-score of 0.881). In specific 'Big Science' fields, extensive author lists are legitimate; however, such a high score strongly suggests a pattern of author list inflation that dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This practice is a serious concern, as it may point to 'honorary' or political authorship rather than necessary massive collaboration, demanding an urgent review of institutional authorship policies to ensure contributions are credited appropriately.
The institution's Z-score of 1.087 indicates a higher exposure to this risk compared to the national average of 0.809. This value points to a potential sustainability risk, suggesting that the institution's scientific prestige may be overly dependent on external partners rather than its own structural capacity. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is lower, invites reflection on whether its excellence metrics stem from genuine internal capabilities or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
With a Z-score of 1.026, the institution shows a greater propensity for this risk factor than the national average of 0.288. This high exposure suggests that a subset of authors may be producing publication volumes that challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator serves as an alert for potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation. These dynamics prioritize metric accumulation over the integrity of the scientific record and warrant closer examination.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 demonstrates a total absence of risk signals, performing even better than the already low national average of -0.139. This result is a clear indicator of a strong commitment to independent, external peer review. By avoiding over-reliance on in-house journals, the College effectively sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, confirming that its scientific production undergoes standard competitive validation rather than using internal 'fast tracks'.
The institution's Z-score of 0.006 is exceptionally low, especially when compared to the national average of 0.778. This demonstrates a differentiated and highly effective management of a risk that appears common in the country. A high rate of bibliographic overlap often indicates 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a study into minimal units to inflate productivity. The College's near-zero score suggests a strong institutional culture that prioritizes the publication of significant, coherent new knowledge over the artificial inflation of output, thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific evidence base.
