| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.368 | -0.119 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.287 | -0.208 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.836 | 0.208 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.480 | -0.328 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
5.595 | 0.881 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
4.005 | 0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
2.072 | 0.288 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.139 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.232 | 0.778 |
Ochanomizu University presents a profile of notable strengths in procedural integrity alongside critical strategic vulnerabilities. With an overall score of 0.522, the institution demonstrates exemplary performance in areas such as the selection of publication venues and the avoidance of academic endogamy, reflecting a solid foundation of responsible research practices. However, this is contrasted by significant risk signals in authorship patterns and impact dependency. The university's thematic strengths, as evidenced by SCImago Institutions Rankings data, are concentrated in Psychology, Mathematics, and Social Sciences, where it holds strong national rankings. These areas of academic excellence could be undermined by the identified risks. The mission to "support all women... in freely developing their unique qualities and capabilities" is challenged by indicators suggesting that institutional prestige may be overly reliant on external leadership and that authorship credit may be diluted. These dynamics could obscure individual contributions, contradicting the core value of fostering unique talent. To fully align its scientific practices with its mission, the university is advised to leverage its robust governance in low-risk areas to develop targeted strategies that address authorship transparency and cultivate greater intellectual leadership, thereby ensuring its impact is both sustainable and internally driven.
The institution's Z-score of -0.368 is lower than the national average of -0.119, positioning it favorably within a low-risk context. This prudent profile suggests that the university manages its affiliation processes with greater rigor than the national standard. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the institution's controlled rate indicates a reduced exposure to risks like "affiliation shopping" or strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit, reflecting clear and effective internal policies.
With a Z-score of -0.287, which is below the country's score of -0.208, the institution demonstrates a prudent and responsible approach to publication quality. This result indicates that its internal control mechanisms are more rigorous than the national standard. A rate significantly lower than the average suggests that quality control and supervision prior to publication are effective, minimizing the incidence of systemic errors or malpractice and reinforcing a strong culture of scientific integrity.
The university's Z-score of 1.836 is significantly higher than the national average of 0.208, even though both fall within a medium-risk category. This indicates a high exposure to this risk factor, suggesting the institution is more prone to forming scientific 'echo chambers' than its national peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this disproportionately high rate warns of potential endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal validation rather than recognition from the broader global community.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.480, placing it in the very low-risk category, in contrast to the country's low-risk score of -0.328. This preventive isolation demonstrates that the university does not replicate the minor risk dynamics observed in its environment. The absence of signals in this area is a strong indicator of excellent due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, effectively avoiding reputational damage and resource waste associated with 'predatory' or low-quality publishing practices.
A Z-score of 5.595 marks a significant risk for the institution, starkly amplifying the vulnerability present in the national system, which has a medium-risk score of 0.881. This severe discrepancy suggests that, outside of legitimate 'Big Science' contexts, the university's research culture may be prone to author list inflation. Such a high value is a critical alert that serves as a signal to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and 'honorary' or political authorship practices that dilute individual accountability and transparency, requiring an urgent review of authorship policies.
The institution's Z-score of 4.005 is in the significant risk category, accentuating the medium-risk trend seen at the national level (0.809). This extremely wide positive gap signals a critical sustainability risk, suggesting that the university's scientific prestige is highly dependent and exogenous. The high value indicates that its impressive excellence metrics may result more from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership, rather than from its own structural and internal research capacity.
With a Z-score of 2.072, the institution demonstrates high exposure to this risk, far exceeding the national average of 0.288 within the same medium-risk band. This suggests the university is more prone to hosting authors with extreme publication volumes. While high productivity can be legitimate, this level of activity often challenges the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality. It points to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is even lower than the country's very low-risk score of -0.139, indicating a total operational silence in this area. This exemplary performance shows a complete absence of risk signals, even below the national average. It reflects a strong commitment to independent, external peer review and a clear avoidance of academic endogamy. By not relying on in-house journals, the university circumvents potential conflicts of interest and ensures its research is validated through standard competitive channels, enhancing its global visibility.
The institution's Z-score of -0.232 (low risk) contrasts sharply with the national average of 0.778 (medium risk), demonstrating notable institutional resilience. This suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk prevalent in the country. The low score indicates that practices like 'salami slicing'—artificially inflating productivity by fragmenting studies into minimal publishable units—are not common. This reinforces a culture that prioritizes the generation of significant new knowledge over the pursuit of volume.
