| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.763 | -0.119 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.418 | -0.208 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.458 | 0.208 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.545 | -0.328 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.987 | 0.881 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.589 | 0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | 0.288 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.139 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | 0.778 |
Rakuno Gakuen University demonstrates a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.581 that indicates a performance well above the standard. The institution exhibits exceptional control over its publication practices, with virtually non-existent signals in critical areas such as retracted output, hyperprolific authorship, redundant publications, and output in discontinued journals. This reflects a deeply embedded culture of quality and ethical rigor. The primary area for strategic attention is the moderate gap between the impact of its total output and that of its internally-led research, suggesting an opportunity to enhance scientific autonomy. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the University's thematic strengths are clearly concentrated in Veterinary, Agricultural and Biological Sciences, and Environmental Science. This strong integrity profile directly supports the institutional mission to develop leaders with strong character; the observed ethical discipline is a practical application of its educational philosophy. To fully realize its goal of "mastering advanced learning," the University can leverage this solid ethical foundation to foster greater intellectual leadership in its collaborations, ensuring its impact is not only collaborative but also structurally self-sustained.
With a Z-score of -0.763, significantly lower than the national average of -0.119, the University demonstrates a prudent and rigorous approach to institutional affiliations. This result suggests that the institution manages its collaborative processes with more stringency than the national standard. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of researcher mobility or partnerships, the University’s low rate indicates a clear avoidance of practices that could be perceived as strategic "affiliation shopping" or attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit, reinforcing a culture of transparent and earned recognition.
The University's Z-score of -0.418 compared to the national score of -0.208 shows a near-total absence of risk signals related to retracted publications, a profile that is consistent with and even improves upon the low-risk national context. Retractions can sometimes signify responsible error correction, but a near-zero rate is a powerful indicator of effective pre-publication quality control. This result suggests that the institution's integrity culture and methodological rigor are succeeding in preventing the systemic failures or recurring malpractice that can lead to such events, safeguarding its scientific reputation.
The institution displays notable resilience against national trends with a Z-score of -0.458, in stark contrast to the country's medium-risk score of 0.208. This indicates that while there may be a systemic tendency towards self-citation in the wider environment, the University's internal control mechanisms effectively mitigate this risk. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the University’s low rate demonstrates that it successfully avoids the "echo chambers" that can lead to endogamous impact inflation. This commitment to external validation ensures its academic influence is recognized by the global community, not just reinforced by internal dynamics.
With a Z-score of -0.545, well below the national average of -0.328, the University shows exemplary due diligence in its choice of publication venues. This low-profile consistency, which surpasses the already low national standard, signals a strong institutional awareness of publication quality. A high rate of output in such journals would be a critical alert for reputational risk, but the University’s performance indicates that its researchers are well-equipped to avoid predatory or low-quality channels, ensuring that scientific resources are invested in credible and impactful dissemination.
The University effectively filters out the national tendency towards hyper-authorship, posting a Z-score of -0.987 against a national average of 0.881. This demonstrates institutional resilience and a commitment to meaningful authorship. While extensive author lists are legitimate in "Big Science," their absence here suggests a culture that prioritizes individual accountability and transparency. By resisting the trend of author list inflation, the University reinforces the value of genuine intellectual contribution over the pursuit of "honorary" or political authorship practices.
The University's Z-score of 0.589, while in the medium-risk range, reflects differentiated management of a risk that is more pronounced at the national level (0.809). This indicates that the institution moderates a common challenge in the country more effectively than its peers. The score points to a potential sustainability risk, suggesting that a portion of the institution's scientific prestige may be dependent on external partners rather than being fully generated by its own structural capacity. This finding invites a strategic reflection on how to build greater internal capacity and exercise more intellectual leadership within collaborations, transforming strategic positioning into endogenous excellence.
The institution shows a clear preventive isolation from national risk dynamics, with a Z-score of -1.413 in a national context that shows medium-risk signals (0.288). This complete absence of hyperprolific authors is a strong indicator of a healthy research environment. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful contribution. The University's result suggests a focus on quality over quantity, effectively preventing risks such as coercive authorship or the dilution of the scientific record, and ensuring that authorship is tied to genuine participation.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the University operates with total silence in this indicator, performing even better than the very low-risk national average (-0.139). This demonstrates an exceptional commitment to independent, external peer review. While in-house journals can serve local purposes, an over-reliance on them can create conflicts of interest. The University’s near-zero rate in this area ensures it avoids any perception of academic endogamy or the use of internal channels as "fast tracks" for publication, thereby maximizing the global visibility and competitive validation of its research.
The University demonstrates a clear disconnection from the risk dynamics observed nationally, with an extremely low Z-score of -1.186 compared to the country's medium-risk score of 0.778. This result indicates a robust institutional policy against the fragmentation of research. The practice of "salami slicing" to artificially inflate productivity distorts scientific evidence and burdens the review system. The University's performance signals a strong commitment to publishing coherent, significant studies, prioritizing the advancement of knowledge over the inflation of publication metrics.
