| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.007 | -0.119 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.390 | -0.208 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.728 | 0.208 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.344 | -0.328 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
1.529 | 0.881 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.556 | 0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.204 | 0.288 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.139 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.533 | 0.778 |
Kanagawa University presents a balanced integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.016 that reflects a general alignment with national and international standards. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of retracted output, publication in discontinued journals, and use of institutional journals, signaling robust quality control and a commitment to high-caliber dissemination channels. Further resilience is demonstrated by a lower-than-average rate of hyperprolific authors, suggesting a healthy balance between productivity and academic rigor. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a significant rate of hyper-authored output, coupled with elevated levels of institutional self-citation and a notable gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work where it holds intellectual leadership. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest national positions are in Social Sciences (ranked 36th in Japan), Earth and Planetary Sciences (76th), Mathematics (81st), and Chemistry (84th). The identified risks, particularly those related to authorship dilution and potential academic insularity, could challenge the core mission of nurturing "self-directed" individuals with a "deep, globally oriented awareness." Addressing these vulnerabilities presents an opportunity to reinforce the principles of "self-discipline" and "desire for the truth," ensuring that the university's valuable contributions to society are built on a foundation of unimpeachable transparency and genuine global engagement.
With a Z-score of -0.007, the university's rate of multiple affiliations is slightly higher than the national average of -0.119. This minor elevation suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring before it escalates. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this indicator shows that the institution exhibits slightly more of this activity than its national peers. It is a subtle signal that calls for a review to ensure all affiliations are substantive and not merely strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit through practices like “affiliation shopping.”
Kanagawa University demonstrates exceptional performance in this area, with a Z-score of -0.390, which is significantly lower than the national average of -0.208. This result indicates a robust and effective system of quality control and scientific supervision, consistent with the low-risk environment in the country. A rate significantly lower than the global average, as seen here, is a positive sign that the institution's integrity culture and pre-publication review mechanisms are successfully preventing both unintentional errors and potential malpractice, reflecting a strong commitment to methodological rigor.
The university's rate of institutional self-citation (Z-score: 0.728) is considerably higher than the national average (Z-score: 0.208), indicating a greater propensity for this practice compared to its peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of established research lines; however, this disproportionately high rate can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' This value warns of a potential risk of endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence might be magnified by internal dynamics rather than validated by broad recognition from the global community, a point of reflection for an institution with a "globally oriented" mission.
The institution shows outstanding diligence in its choice of publication venues, with a Z-score of -0.344, well below the national average of -0.328. This near-total absence of risk signals is consistent with the low-risk national context and points to a strong institutional awareness of publication quality standards. A low proportion of output in discontinued journals is a critical indicator of due diligence, confirming that the university effectively avoids channeling its research into media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, thereby protecting its resources and reputation from 'predatory' practices.
With a Z-score of 1.529, the university's rate of hyper-authored output significantly exceeds the national average of 0.881. This suggests the institution is amplifying a vulnerability already present in the national system. When this pattern appears outside 'Big Science' contexts where extensive author lists are normal, it can indicate author list inflation, a practice that dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This trend serves as an alert to review authorship policies to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and 'honorary' authorship, ensuring that credit is assigned in a way that reflects meaningful intellectual contribution.
The university exhibits a Z-score of 1.556 in this indicator, markedly higher than the national average of 0.809. This reveals a high degree of exposure to dependency risk, where the institution's overall impact is significantly greater than the impact of the research it leads. A very wide positive gap suggests that its scientific prestige may be largely dependent and exogenous, rather than stemming from its own structural capacity. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether its high-impact metrics result from genuine internal capabilities or from a positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
Kanagawa University's Z-score of -0.204 is notably lower than the national average of 0.288, which sits at a medium risk level. This indicates strong institutional resilience, as the university appears to have control mechanisms that effectively mitigate a systemic risk observed across the country. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and point to risks like coercive authorship or 'salami slicing.' The university's low score in this area suggests a healthy institutional culture that prioritizes the quality and integrity of the scientific record over sheer publication volume.
The institution demonstrates an exemplary commitment to external validation, with a Z-score of -0.268 for publications in its own journals, even lower than the already minimal national average of -0.139. This operational silence signifies a complete absence of risk signals related to academic endogamy. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the university ensures its scientific production consistently undergoes independent external peer review, which is essential for limiting conflicts of interest, maximizing global visibility, and preventing the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate academic records.
With a Z-score of 0.533, the university's rate of redundant output is lower than the national average of 0.778. This demonstrates differentiated management, where the institution successfully moderates a risk that appears to be more common at the national level. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' a practice of dividing a study into minimal units to inflate productivity. The university's more controlled rate suggests a stronger institutional focus on producing significant, coherent bodies of work over artificially increasing publication counts.
