| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
2.083 | -0.119 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.475 | -0.208 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.162 | 0.208 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.457 | -0.328 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.661 | 0.881 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.026 | 0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.747 | 0.288 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.139 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.088 | 0.778 |
Obihiro University of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.199, which indicates a performance superior to the global average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of retracted output, publication in discontinued journals, and reliance on institutional journals, coupled with a strong capacity for generating impact through its own intellectual leadership. These factors point to a culture of rigorous quality control and a commitment to external validation. While the university effectively mitigates national trends in hyper-authorship and redundant publication, areas for proactive monitoring include a moderate rate of multiple affiliations, which deviates from the national standard, and a level of institutional self-citation that aligns with a systemic pattern across Japan. These results are highly consistent with the university's mission to "contribute to regional and international societies" through sustainable agriculture. Its strong performance in research integrity reinforces the credibility and trustworthiness essential for this societal role. The university's prominent national rankings in key thematic areas, particularly Veterinary (12th), Agricultural and Biological Sciences (33rd), and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (40th) according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, are built on a solid foundation of ethical research practices. To further enhance this alignment, it is recommended that the institution reviews its affiliation policies to ensure they transparently reflect genuine collaboration, thereby safeguarding its well-established reputation for excellence and social responsibility.
The institution presents a Z-score of 2.083, a value that indicates a moderate deviation from the national context, where the average Z-score is -0.119. This suggests the university shows a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers, warranting a review of its causes. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this indicator signals that the rate is unusually high for the Japanese standard. This could be interpreted as a strategic attempt to inflate institutional credit or a pattern of “affiliation shopping” that, if not justified by substantive collaboration, could dilute the institution's distinct academic identity.
With a Z-score of -0.475, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low incidence of retracted publications, a figure that aligns with the low-risk national environment (Z-score of -0.208). This low-profile consistency suggests that the university's internal quality control mechanisms are robust and effective. The absence of significant risk signals in this area is a positive indicator of responsible supervision and a healthy integrity culture. It reflects that processes for correcting the scientific record are used for unintentional errors, rather than being a symptom of systemic failures or recurring malpractice, thereby reinforcing the reliability of its research output.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is 0.162, a figure that is nearly identical to the national average of 0.208. This alignment indicates that the university's behavior reflects a systemic pattern shared across the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of established research lines. However, this moderate level, both for the institution and the country, points to a potential risk of forming 'echo chambers' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This shared practice suggests a national-level dynamic that could lead to endogamous impact inflation, where academic influence is shaped more by internal dynamics than by broader recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.457, indicating a very low rate of publication in journals that have been discontinued, a performance consistent with the low-risk national average (Z-score of -0.328). This result demonstrates a strong and effective due diligence process in the selection of dissemination channels for its research. By avoiding journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, the university successfully mitigates significant reputational risks and ensures its research resources are not wasted on 'predatory' or low-quality practices, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific contributions.
With a Z-score of -0.661, the institution shows a low rate of hyper-authored publications, demonstrating notable resilience against a practice that is more common at the national level (country Z-score of 0.881). This suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks of authorship inflation observed elsewhere in the country. By maintaining low levels of hyper-authorship, the institution promotes individual accountability and transparency, successfully distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship practices that can dilute the meaning of scientific contribution.
The institution's Z-score of -1.026 is exceptionally low, indicating a strong capacity for generating high-impact research under its own leadership. This performance represents a preventive isolation from the risk dynamics observed nationally, where the country's average Z-score of 0.809 suggests a greater dependency on external partners for impact. The university's result is a clear sign of sustainability and structural strength, demonstrating that its scientific prestige is built upon genuine internal capacity rather than a strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This ensures that its reputation for excellence is both authentic and self-sufficient.
The institution displays a Z-score of -0.747, indicating a low incidence of hyperprolific authors. This demonstrates institutional resilience, as it effectively mitigates the moderate risk levels seen across the country (Z-score of 0.288). This prudent profile suggests a healthy balance between productivity and quality, avoiding the pressures that can lead to extreme publication volumes. By curbing this trend, the university reduces the risk of associated issues such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thereby prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over the simple inflation of metrics.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a near-total absence of risk signals related to publishing in its own journals, performing even better than the very low-risk national average (Z-score of -0.139). This operational silence is a strong indicator of a commitment to independent, external peer review and global visibility. By avoiding reliance on in-house journals, the university effectively eliminates potential conflicts of interest where it could act as both judge and party. This practice ensures its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels, reinforcing its credibility and integration within the international academic community.
The institution's Z-score for redundant output is 0.088, which, while indicating a moderate risk level, reflects differentiated management compared to the much higher national average of 0.778. This shows that the university is successfully moderating a risk that appears to be a common challenge within the country. Although some level of bibliographic overlap is present, the institution's ability to keep it significantly below the national trend suggests a conscious effort to discourage 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting studies into minimal publishable units. This approach prioritizes the generation of significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of productivity metrics.
