| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.592 | -0.119 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.155 | -0.208 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.276 | 0.208 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.267 | -0.328 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.516 | 0.881 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.513 | 0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.053 | 0.288 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.139 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.097 | 0.778 |
Mie University demonstrates a solid foundation in scientific integrity, reflected by an overall risk score of 0.022, which indicates a generally healthy research environment. The institution's primary strengths lie in its robust control over publication channels and author practices, with very low to low risk signals in the Rate of Output in Institutional Journals, Rate of Multiple Affiliations, Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, and Rate of Hyperprolific Authors. However, a cluster of medium-risk indicators, including the Rate of Retracted Output, Rate of Institutional Self-Citation, and Rate of Redundant Output, requires strategic attention. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas nationally are Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (ranked 14th in Japan), Physics and Astronomy (33rd), and Energy (36th). These areas of excellence directly support the university's mission to foster the “Welfare of the Society” and the “Harmonious Coexistence of Nature and Mankind.” The identified medium-risk practices, such as potential data fragmentation or insular citation patterns, could undermine the credibility and external validation essential for achieving this mission. To fully align its operational practices with its aspirational goals of excellence and societal contribution, Mie University is encouraged to implement targeted review and training initiatives focused on these specific vulnerabilities, thereby reinforcing its commitment to robust and transparent research.
Mie University's Z-score for this indicator is -0.592, which is significantly lower than the Japanese national average of -0.119. This demonstrates a prudent profile, as the institution manages its affiliation practices with more rigor than the national standard. While multiple affiliations are often legitimate, the university's low score indicates it is effectively avoiding practices that could be perceived as strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," thereby maintaining clear and transparent attributions of its research output.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.155, while the national average for Japan is -0.208. This signals a moderate deviation from the national norm, suggesting the university shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors that can lead to retractions compared to its peers. Retractions can sometimes result from the honest correction of errors, but a rate significantly higher than the national standard alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be failing more frequently than elsewhere, indicating a possible lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management.
The university's Z-score for institutional self-citation is 0.276, compared to the national average of 0.208. With both the institution and the country operating at a medium-risk level, this value indicates a high exposure, suggesting the center is more prone to showing these alert signals than its environment's average. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this disproportionately high rate can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' This trend warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community.
Mie University has a Z-score of -0.267 in this area, which is well-aligned with the national average of -0.328. This reflects a state of statistical normality, where the risk level is as expected for its context. The low score confirms that the institution exercises appropriate due diligence in selecting dissemination channels for its research. This practice effectively mitigates severe reputational risks and avoids wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality journals that do not meet international ethical or quality standards.
The institution's Z-score is 0.516, while the national average stands at 0.881. In a context where hyper-authorship is a medium-level risk nationally, the university's lower score indicates a differentiated management approach. This suggests the institution is successfully moderating a risk that appears more common across the country. By maintaining a lower rate, the university better distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and potentially problematic 'honorary' authorship practices, thus preserving individual accountability and transparency in its publications.
Mie University's Z-score for this indicator is 0.513, notably lower than the national average of 0.809. This demonstrates a pattern of differentiated management, where the institution moderates a risk that is more pronounced at the national level. A wide positive gap can signal that scientific prestige is dependent on external partners rather than being structurally generated. The university's more contained score suggests a healthier balance, indicating that its excellence metrics are more reflective of its real internal capacity and intellectual leadership in collaborations, reducing the risk of a dependent or exogenous reputation.
The university shows a Z-score of -0.053, in contrast to the national average of 0.288, which is in the medium-risk category. This result signifies a state of preventive isolation, where the center does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme publication volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The institution's very low score indicates it is effectively avoiding potential imbalances between quantity and quality, steering clear of risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation.
Mie University shows a Z-score of -0.268 for output in its own journals, which is even lower than the already low national average of -0.139. This represents a state of total operational silence in this risk area, with the institution demonstrating an absence of these risk signals that is even more pronounced than the national standard. This excellent result indicates that the university effectively avoids the potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy associated with over-reliance on in-house journals. By not using internal channels to bypass independent external peer review, the institution ensures its research is validated competitively, enhancing its global visibility and credibility.
The institution's Z-score is 1.097, which is higher than the national average of 0.778. As both scores fall within the medium-risk category, this indicates high exposure, suggesting the center is more prone to showing these alert signals than its environment's average. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications often indicates data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' This elevated value alerts to the risk that researchers may be dividing coherent studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, a practice that distorts the scientific evidence and prioritizes volume over significant new knowledge.
