| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.391 | -0.119 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.230 | -0.208 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.923 | 0.208 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.291 | -0.328 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
2.162 | 0.881 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
2.394 | 0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
1.750 | 0.288 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
2.481 | -0.139 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.764 | 0.778 |
Kurume University demonstrates a solid overall performance in scientific integrity, marked by significant strengths in research openness and governance, yet also showing specific areas of vulnerability that require strategic attention. The institution's key strengths lie in its exceptionally low rate of institutional self-citation, indicating a strong culture of external validation, complemented by well-managed rates of multiple affiliations and publications in discontinued journals. However, this positive profile is contrasted by a significant risk in hyper-authored output and medium-risk indicators in hyperprolific authorship, impact dependency, and reliance on institutional journals, all of which are notably more pronounced than national averages. These integrity challenges coexist with recognized thematic excellence, as evidenced by its strong national rankings in Psychology (35th in Japan), Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (45th), and Medicine (48th) according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. While the institution's specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, the identified risks related to authorship integrity and research independence could challenge any core commitment to academic excellence and social responsibility. By proactively addressing these vulnerabilities, Kurume University can ensure its recognized scientific contributions are built upon a foundation of unimpeachable research practices, thereby reinforcing its reputation and long-term impact.
With a Z-score of -0.391, which is lower than the national average of -0.119, the institution exhibits a prudent and well-controlled approach to researcher affiliations. This profile suggests that the university's processes are managed with more rigor than the national standard. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of collaboration or researcher mobility, the institution's controlled rate indicates a very low risk of strategic "affiliation shopping" or other practices designed to artificially inflate institutional credit, reflecting sound governance in this area.
The institution's Z-score for retracted publications is 0.230, a medium-risk value that represents a moderate deviation from the low-risk national benchmark of -0.208. This suggests a greater institutional sensitivity to factors that can lead to retractions compared to its national peers. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly above the norm alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, suggesting that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be failing more frequently and that a qualitative review of supervision and validation processes is warranted.
Kurume University shows exceptional strength in this area, with a Z-score of -0.923, indicating a very low rate of self-citation that effectively insulates it from the moderate-risk dynamics observed nationally (Z-score of 0.208). This is a powerful signal of scientific openness and external validation. By avoiding the risk of operating within an academic 'echo chamber,' the institution demonstrates that its research impact is recognized by the global community rather than being inflated by internal dynamics, reinforcing the credibility of its scientific contributions.
The institution's Z-score of -0.291 for publications in discontinued journals is low and aligns closely with the national average of -0.328. This indicates a level of risk that is statistically normal for its context and size. The data suggests that the institution's researchers generally exercise appropriate due diligence in selecting publication venues, showing no particular vulnerability to predatory or low-quality journals that could pose a reputational risk or lead to a waste of research resources.
A significant risk is identified in this indicator, with the institution's Z-score of 2.162 far exceeding the country's medium-risk score of 0.881. This pattern suggests that the university is amplifying a vulnerability already present in the national system. A high rate of hyper-authorship can be a critical signal of author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability and transparency. It is imperative for the institution to investigate whether this trend stems from legitimate, large-scale 'Big Science' collaborations or from problematic 'honorary' authorship practices that compromise research integrity.
The institution presents a Z-score of 2.394, which, while in the medium-risk category like the national average of 0.809, is substantially higher. This indicates a high exposure to the risk of impact dependency. Such a wide gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige may be overly reliant on collaborations where it does not hold an intellectual leadership role, posing a risk to its long-term research sustainability. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether its high-impact metrics are the result of genuine internal capacity or strategic positioning in external partnerships.
With a Z-score of 1.750, the institution's rate of hyperprolific authors is significantly more pronounced than the national average of 0.288, despite both falling into the medium-risk category. This high exposure suggests a greater tendency toward extreme individual publication volumes. This indicator serves as a warning for potential imbalances between quantity and quality, as it can be linked to risks such as coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or the assignment of authorship without meaningful intellectual contribution—dynamics that prioritize metric inflation over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of 2.481 represents a medium-risk level that is highly unusual compared to the very low-risk national standard of -0.139, triggering a monitoring alert. This stark contrast requires a review of internal publication policies. An excessive dependence on in-house journals raises significant conflict-of-interest concerns, as the institution acts as both judge and party in the validation process. This practice risks creating academic endogamy, where research may bypass rigorous external peer review, thereby limiting its global visibility and potentially serving as a 'fast track' to inflate publication counts.
The institution's Z-score of 0.764 is nearly identical to the national average of 0.778, placing both at a medium-risk level. This alignment suggests that the university's practices in this regard reflect a systemic pattern shared at the national level. A medium-risk value serves as an alert for the potential practice of 'salami slicing'—artificially inflating productivity by fragmenting a single study into multiple minimal publications. While this appears to be a common practice, it overburdens the review system and distorts the scientific evidence base, warranting internal monitoring to encourage the publication of more significant, coherent studies.
