| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.873 | -0.119 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.616 | -0.208 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.231 | 0.208 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.192 | -0.328 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
1.396 | 0.881 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.939 | 0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
2.004 | 0.288 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.139 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.610 | 0.778 |
Jichi Medical University presents a balanced integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.039, indicating performance that is closely aligned with global benchmarks. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths in maintaining low rates of multiple affiliations, retractions, redundant output, and publication in institutional journals, showcasing robust internal controls in these areas. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a significant rate of hyper-authored output and medium-risk signals for hyperprolific authors and a dependency on external collaborations for research impact. These findings are particularly relevant given the University's strong national standing in key research areas, including a Top 10 ranking in Agricultural and Biological Sciences, and strong positions in Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, and Medicine, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. The identified risks, especially concerning authorship and impact dependency, could potentially conflict with the core mission to educate doctors of "ethical standing" and "contribute to the advancement of medicine," as questionable authorship practices can undermine scientific credibility. By leveraging its clear operational strengths, the University is well-positioned to address these vulnerabilities, thereby reinforcing its commitment to scientific excellence and its vital social mission.
The institution's Z-score of -0.873 is well below the national average of -0.119. This demonstrates a very low incidence of multiple affiliations, reflecting a stable and transparent affiliation policy that is even more conservative than the low-risk national standard. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the University's extremely low rate indicates an absence of any strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” reinforcing a culture of clear and unambiguous research attribution.
The institution's Z-score of -0.616 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.208. This result points to a very low rate of retracted publications, consistent with the low-risk environment in Japan. This absence of risk signals suggests that the institution's quality control and supervision mechanisms prior to publication are highly effective. It reflects a strong integrity culture where potential errors are managed proactively, preventing the need for systemic corrections and reinforcing the reliability of its scientific output.
The institution's Z-score of 0.231 is nearly identical to the national average of 0.208. This alignment suggests that the University's rate of institutional self-citation reflects a broader, systemic pattern common across the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of established research lines. However, this medium-risk level warrants observation as it could signal a tendency towards 'echo chambers' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny, potentially leading to an endogamous inflation of impact rather than recognition from the global community.
With a Z-score of -0.192, the institution shows a slightly higher rate of publication in discontinued journals compared to the national average of -0.328, though both remain in a low-risk category. This minor deviation suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants review. A high proportion of output in such journals can be a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. While the current level is not alarming, it signals a need to reinforce information literacy among researchers to ensure resources are not inadvertently directed towards low-quality or 'predatory' publishing venues, which could pose future reputational risks.
The institution's Z-score of 1.396 is significantly elevated, marking a critical risk level that amplifies the medium-risk trend already present at the national level (Z-score: 0.881). This indicates a pronounced tendency towards hyper-authored publications. When this pattern appears outside 'Big Science' contexts, a high Z-score can indicate author list inflation, diluting individual accountability and transparency. This serves as a strong signal to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and 'honorary' or political authorship practices, which compromise research integrity.
The institution's Z-score of 0.939 is higher than the national average of 0.809, indicating a greater exposure to risks associated with impact dependency. This gap suggests that the institution's overall research impact is significantly more reliant on external collaborations than the work it leads independently. A high value warns that its scientific prestige may be more exogenous than structural. This invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics stem from genuine internal capacity or from a positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise primary intellectual leadership, posing a potential risk to long-term scientific sustainability.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 2.004 for hyperprolific authors, a figure substantially higher than the national average of 0.288, despite both being classified as medium risk. This high exposure points to a notable concentration of extremely high publication volumes among a few individuals. While high productivity can evidence leadership, extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator alerts to 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.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 demonstrates a near-total absence of publication in its own journals, a rate even lower than the already minimal national average of -0.139. This operational silence in this area is a strong positive signal. It indicates that the University avoids the potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy that can arise from excessive dependence on in-house journals. By channeling its research through external, independent peer-reviewed venues, the institution ensures competitive validation and global visibility, reinforcing its commitment to objective scientific standards.
With a Z-score of -0.610, the institution shows a complete absence of signals related to redundant output, starkly contrasting with the medium-risk dynamic observed at the national level (Z-score: 0.778). This demonstrates a clear preventive isolation from a problematic national trend. The data suggests the institution does not engage in 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This commitment to publishing coherent, significant work upholds the integrity of the scientific evidence base and avoids overburdening the peer review system.
