| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.940 | -0.119 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.559 | -0.208 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.941 | 0.208 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.148 | -0.328 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
2.389 | 0.881 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
2.574 | 0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.609 | 0.288 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.139 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.071 | 0.778 |
Kawasaki Medical School presents a robust scientific integrity profile, characterized by a solid foundation in core research practices but marked by specific, high-impact vulnerabilities that require strategic attention. With an overall integrity score of -0.175, the institution demonstrates significant strengths, particularly in its exceptionally low rates of institutional self-citation, retracted output, and multiple affiliations, indicating a culture of transparency and external validation. These strengths are foundational to its strong thematic positioning, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings in key areas such as Medicine and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology. However, this positive outlook is challenged by a significant risk in hyper-authored output and a medium risk related to a dependency on external collaborations for impact. These issues could potentially undermine the institution's mission to "contribute to the progress of medicine" by creating a perception that authorship and impact are inflated rather than earned through genuine leadership. To fully align its practices with its mission of excellence and social welfare, the institution is encouraged to leverage its clear strengths in research integrity to address these specific vulnerabilities, thereby ensuring its contributions are both impactful and unimpeachable.
The institution's Z-score of -0.940 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.119. This demonstrates an exemplary and clear approach to institutional affiliation that surpasses the already low-risk national standard. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, disproportionately high rates can signal attempts to inflate institutional credit. Kawasaki Medical School's exceptionally low score indicates the absence of such risk signals, reflecting a transparent and well-defined policy that aligns with best practices and avoids any ambiguity in research attribution.
With a Z-score of -0.559, the institution maintains a lower rate of retractions than the national average of -0.208, situating it firmly in a low-risk context. A high rate of retractions can suggest systemic failures in pre-publication quality control. The institution's very low score, however, points to the opposite: its internal review and supervision mechanisms appear robust and effective, ensuring the integrity of the scientific record and responsibly managing the correction of any unintentional errors before they escalate.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.941, in stark contrast to the national average of 0.208. This result indicates a commendable disconnection from the moderate self-citation trends observed across the country. A high rate of self-citation can signal scientific isolation or an 'echo chamber' that inflates impact through internal validation. By maintaining an exceptionally low score, the institution demonstrates that its research is validated by the global scientific community, not by internal dynamics, thereby ensuring its academic influence is based on broad external recognition.
The institution's Z-score of -0.148 is slightly higher than the national average of -0.328, though both remain in a low-risk category. This minor deviation suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants attention. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals can expose an institution to severe reputational risks by associating it with 'predatory' or low-quality practices. While the current level is not alarming, it signals a need to reinforce due diligence and information literacy among researchers to ensure all dissemination channels meet international ethical and quality standards.
A significant alert is raised by the institution's Z-score of 2.389, which is substantially higher than the national average of 0.881. This finding indicates that the institution is not only following but amplifying a national vulnerability toward large author lists. Outside of 'Big Science' contexts, such a high rate points to a critical risk of author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This practice may signal the presence of 'honorary' or political authorship, demanding an urgent review to ensure that authorship criteria are rigorously applied and reflect genuine intellectual contributions.
The institution shows a Z-score of 2.574, considerably higher than the national average of 0.809. This high exposure to risk indicates that the institution is more prone than its national peers to a dependency on external collaborations for its impact. A wide positive gap suggests that its scientific prestige may be largely exogenous, stemming from participation in projects where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This poses a sustainability risk and calls for a strategic reflection on how to build genuine internal capacity to ensure that its high-impact research is structural and self-led.
With a Z-score of -0.609, the institution demonstrates strong resilience against the moderate national trend toward hyperprolificity (Z-score of 0.288). This suggests that institutional control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the risks associated with prioritizing quantity over quality. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may signal coercive authorship or other integrity issues. The institution's low score is a positive indicator that it fosters a research environment where the integrity of the scientific record is valued over sheer publication metrics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is even lower than the minimal national average of -0.139, indicating a complete absence of risk in this area. This operational silence reflects a strong commitment to independent, external peer review. By avoiding reliance on in-house journals, the institution sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, where production might bypass standard competitive validation. This practice enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, ensuring it is judged on merit by the wider scientific community.
The institution's Z-score of 0.071 is markedly lower than the national average of 0.778, showcasing differentiated management of a common risk. This indicates the institution effectively moderates the practice of 'salami slicing,' where a single study is fragmented into minimal publishable units to inflate productivity. Such a low score suggests a culture that prioritizes the communication of significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of publication counts, thereby protecting the integrity of the scientific evidence base and respecting the academic review system.
