| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.460 | -0.119 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.174 | -0.208 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.021 | 0.208 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.367 | -0.328 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.277 | 0.881 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.667 | 0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | 0.288 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.139 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.503 | 0.778 |
Kwansei Gakuin University demonstrates a robust and healthy scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.149 indicating performance that is well-aligned with global best practices. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of hyperprolific authorship and publication in institutional journals, alongside effective mitigation of risks like institutional self-citation and hyper-authorship, where it outperforms national trends. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a medium-risk exposure to publishing in discontinued journals, a moderate gap in the impact of its researcher-led output, and signals of redundant publications. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas nationally include Economics, Econometrics and Finance (ranked 23rd in Japan), Business, Management and Accounting (26th), and Earth and Planetary Sciences (30th). These results largely support the institutional mission to cultivate "world citizens who embody... 'Mastery for Service,' by transforming society with compassion and integrity." The institution's strong overall integrity profile reinforces this commitment, but the identified medium-risk indicators, particularly concerning publication channels and research fragmentation, could subtly undermine the principles of "mastery" and "integrity." To fully realize its mission, the university is encouraged to focus on enhancing researcher literacy regarding high-quality publication venues and promoting research that prioritizes substantive contribution over sheer volume, thereby ensuring its academic excellence is both impactful and unimpeachable.
With a Z-score of -0.460, the institution exhibits a lower rate of multiple affiliations than the national average of -0.119. This suggests a prudent and well-managed approach to academic collaboration. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the university's controlled rate indicates a low risk of strategic "affiliation shopping" to inflate institutional credit. This disciplined profile reflects a commitment to transparent and meaningful collaborations rather than practices aimed at artificially boosting rankings, aligning with a culture of authentic scientific contribution.
The university's Z-score for retracted output is -0.174, a low value that is nonetheless slightly higher than the national baseline of -0.208. This minimal signal suggests a potential incipient vulnerability that warrants observation. Retractions can be complex events, and some may result from the honest correction of errors, signifying responsible supervision. However, a rate that edges above the national standard, even while remaining low, could be an early indicator that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may have areas for improvement. Continued monitoring is advisable to ensure this does not evolve into a systemic vulnerability affecting the institution's integrity culture.
Kwansei Gakuin University shows remarkable resilience in this area, with a low-risk Z-score of -0.021, in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.208. This demonstrates that the institution's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk prevalent in the country. By maintaining a low rate, the university successfully avoids the creation of scientific 'echo chambers' or endogamous impact inflation. This result strongly suggests that the institution's academic influence is genuinely validated by the broader global community rather than being oversized by internal citation dynamics.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.367, indicating a medium risk level that moderately deviates from the low-risk national standard of -0.328. This is a significant point of attention, as it suggests a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This score indicates that a portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for enhanced information literacy to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The university's Z-score of -0.277 places it in a low-risk category, showcasing institutional resilience against a national trend that registers a medium risk (0.881). This indicates that the university's governance effectively filters out practices that could lead to authorship list inflation. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' this low score outside those contexts suggests the institution successfully promotes individual accountability and transparency. It serves as a positive signal that necessary massive collaborations are well-distinguished from 'honorary' or political authorship practices, which are more common in the national environment.
With a Z-score of 0.667, the institution operates at a medium-risk level, but demonstrates differentiated management by maintaining a narrower gap than the national average of 0.809. This score signals a sustainability risk, suggesting that a portion of the university's scientific prestige is dependent on external partners rather than being fully structural. However, the fact that this dependency is less pronounced than the national norm indicates a comparatively stronger internal capacity for intellectual leadership. The result invites strategic reflection on how to further empower its researchers to lead high-impact projects, ensuring that excellence metrics increasingly result from endogenous capabilities.
The institution exhibits a state of preventive isolation in this indicator, with an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.413, placing it in the very low-risk category while the country shows a medium-risk average of 0.288. This demonstrates a clear and positive disconnection from a potentially problematic national dynamic. The university's environment does not appear to foster the extreme individual publication volumes that challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This absence of hyperprolificacy is a strong indicator of a healthy academic culture that prioritizes quality over quantity, effectively avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or metric-chasing at the expense of scientific integrity.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the university demonstrates total operational silence in this area, showing an absence of risk signals that is even more pronounced than the very low-risk national average (-0.139). This exceptional performance indicates a strong commitment to external validation and global visibility. By avoiding reliance on in-house journals, the institution effectively eliminates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production consistently undergoes independent, competitive peer review, reinforcing the credibility and global reach of its research.
The university's Z-score of 0.503 places it in the medium-risk category for redundant output, but its performance reflects differentiated management compared to the higher national average of 0.778. This indicates that while signals of 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing a single study into minimal publishable units to inflate productivity—are present, the institution moderates this behavior more effectively than its national peers. Nonetheless, the medium-risk classification serves as an alert that this practice may be distorting the scientific record and overburdening the review system. Further attention is warranted to encourage the publication of more cohesive and significant bodies of work.
