| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.864 | -0.119 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.118 | -0.208 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.011 | 0.208 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.195 | -0.328 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.596 | 0.881 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.484 | 0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.260 | 0.288 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.139 |
|
Redundant Output
|
2.333 | 0.778 |
Meiji University presents a robust and well-balanced scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.152. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining operational transparency and ethical conduct, with exceptionally low-risk indicators for Multiple Affiliations, Hyperprolific Authors, and publication in institutional journals. Furthermore, the university shows commendable resilience by effectively mitigating national trends toward hyper-authorship. These strengths are foundational to its academic reputation, particularly in its highest-ranking thematic areas according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, which include Arts and Humanities, Social Sciences, and Economics, Econometrics and Finance. However, to fully align with a mission of academic excellence and societal trust, strategic attention is required for two key vulnerabilities: a high exposure to institutional self-citation and a notable rate of redundant output. Addressing these areas will ensure that the university's recognized thematic leadership is built upon a foundation of unquestionable scientific rigor and externally validated impact, reinforcing its commitment to producing knowledge of the highest quality and integrity.
With a Z-score of -0.864, Meiji University demonstrates a near-total absence of risk signals in this area, positioning it favorably against the national average of -0.119. This result indicates a low-profile consistency, where the institution's clean record aligns perfectly with the low-risk standard observed across Japan. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of researcher mobility or partnerships, the university's exceptionally low rate underscores a clear and transparent approach to institutional credit, effectively avoiding any ambiguity that could be perceived as strategic "affiliation shopping" to inflate its standing.
The university's Z-score for retracted output is -0.118, which, while low, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.208. This subtle difference suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring. Retractions are complex events, and some can signify responsible supervision and the correction of honest errors. However, a rate that edges above the national baseline, even within a low-risk context, serves as a signal that pre-publication quality control mechanisms could be reinforced to prevent any potential escalation and ensure that systemic failures in methodological rigor are not a contributing factor.
Meiji University exhibits a Z-score of 1.011 in institutional self-citation, a figure significantly higher than the national average of 0.208. This disparity indicates a high exposure to this risk factor compared to its peers. While a degree of self-citation is natural for developing established research lines, this disproportionately high rate warns of potential scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' There is a clear risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than being validated by sufficient external scrutiny from the global research community.
The institution's Z-score of -0.195 for output in discontinued journals is slightly elevated compared to the national average of -0.328, signaling an incipient vulnerability. Although the overall risk level is low for both the university and the country, this minor deviation suggests a need to enhance due diligence in the selection of publication venues. A sporadic presence in such journals may be unintentional, but this pattern serves as a constructive alert to reinforce information literacy among researchers, preventing the misallocation of resources to 'predatory' or low-quality channels and safeguarding the institution's reputation.
Meiji University shows remarkable institutional resilience with a Z-score of -0.596, contrasting sharply with the national medium-risk average of 0.881. This indicates that the university's internal governance and control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk prevalent in the country. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' the university's low score suggests it successfully distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and questionable practices like 'honorary' or political authorship, thereby upholding individual accountability and transparency in its research publications.
The university demonstrates differentiated management in its collaborative impact, with a Z-score of 0.484, which is considerably lower than the national average of 0.809. This indicates that the institution successfully moderates a risk that is more common across the country. A wide gap can signal that scientific prestige is dependent on external partners rather than internal capacity. Meiji University's more balanced score suggests its excellence metrics are more reflective of its own structural capabilities and that it exercises a healthy degree of intellectual leadership in its collaborations, reducing the sustainability risk of an overly exogenous impact profile.
With a Z-score of -1.260, Meiji University is in a state of preventive isolation from the national trend, where the average score is 0.288. This stark contrast highlights the university's robust position against a risk observed elsewhere in the system. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's exceptionally low score indicates a healthy institutional culture that prioritizes quality over quantity, effectively avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific record.
The university shows total operational silence in this indicator, with a Z-score of -0.268 that is even lower than the already minimal national average of -0.139. This result reflects an exemplary commitment to external validation. By avoiding reliance on in-house journals, the institution sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, where production might bypass independent peer review. This practice ensures its research is validated through standard competitive channels, maximizing its global visibility and credibility.
A significant area of concern is the university's Z-score of 2.333 for redundant output, which points to a high exposure to this risk, far exceeding the national average of 0.778. This high value is a critical alert for the practice of 'salami slicing,' where a single study may be fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice not only distorts the available scientific evidence but also overburdens the peer review system. It suggests an urgent need to review institutional incentives to ensure they reward significant new knowledge rather than sheer publication volume.
