| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.443 | -0.119 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.381 | -0.208 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.223 | 0.208 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.452 | -0.328 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
3.823 | 0.881 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
2.803 | 0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.876 | 0.288 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.139 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | 0.778 |
Rikkyo University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, characterized by a balanced overall score (-0.103) that reflects significant strengths in procedural rigor and a clear isolation from several national risk trends. The institution demonstrates exceptional control over its publication quality, with very low risk indicators for retracted output, publication in discontinued journals, and redundant publications (salami slicing). This foundation of integrity is further supported by a resilient stance against national tendencies toward institutional self-citation and hyperprolific authorship. However, this strong performance is contrasted by two areas requiring strategic attention: a significant rate of hyper-authored output and a medium-risk gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work led by its own researchers. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's thematic strengths are most prominent in Business, Management and Accounting (ranked 24th in Japan), Arts and Humanities (26th), and Earth and Planetary Sciences (34th). The identified risks, particularly those related to authorship and impact dependency, could challenge the university's mission to foster the "uniqueness of each person’s individual characteristics" and educate the "‘whole’ person." Diluted authorship accountability and a reliance on external leadership may inadvertently undermine the very individual freedom and internal capacity the mission champions. To fully align its operational practices with its profound humanistic values, it is recommended that the university investigates the drivers of hyper-authorship and develops strategies to bolster its internal intellectual leadership, thereby ensuring its reputation for excellence is built upon a sustainable and authentic foundation.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.443, which is notably lower than the national average of -0.119. This prudent profile suggests that the university manages its affiliation processes with more rigor than the national standard. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the university's controlled rate indicates a well-governed system that effectively avoids the potential for strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” ensuring that declared collaborations are substantive and transparent.
With a Z-score of -0.381 in an environment where the national score is -0.208, the university demonstrates low-profile consistency in its quality assurance. The complete absence of significant risk signals in this area, even within a low-risk national context, points to highly effective pre-publication quality control mechanisms. This suggests that the institution's integrity culture and methodological rigor are strong, successfully preventing the types of recurring errors or malpractice that can lead to systemic vulnerabilities and reputational damage.
The university shows a Z-score of -0.223, contrasting sharply with the national average of 0.208. This demonstrates clear institutional resilience, as internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate systemic risks prevalent in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but Japan's national tendency presents a risk of creating 'echo chambers.' Rikkyo University, however, avoids this pitfall, indicating that its research seeks and achieves validation from the broader global community rather than relying on internal dynamics to inflate its perceived academic influence.
The institution's Z-score of -0.452 is well below the national average of -0.328, reflecting a consistent and responsible approach to selecting publication venues. This alignment with a low-risk national standard underscores the university's strong due diligence. By effectively avoiding journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, the institution protects its researchers and its reputation from the severe risks associated with 'predatory' practices, ensuring that its scientific output is channeled through credible and enduring media.
A critical alert is raised by the institution's Z-score of 3.823, which significantly exceeds the national average of 0.881. This finding points to a risk accentuation, where the university amplifies a vulnerability already present in the national system. In disciplines outside of 'Big Science,' such extensive author lists can be a sign of author list inflation, a practice that dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This signal warrants an urgent internal review to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and potential 'honorary' or political authorship practices that could compromise research integrity.
The university's Z-score of 2.803 is considerably higher than the national average of 0.809, indicating high exposure to this particular risk. This wide positive gap suggests a potential sustainability issue, where the institution's scientific prestige may be overly dependent on external partners rather than being structurally generated from within. This metric invites a deep reflection on whether the university's high-impact publications result from its own internal capacity and intellectual leadership or from a strategic positioning in collaborations where it plays a secondary role. Strengthening internal leadership is key to ensuring long-term, autonomous excellence.
With a Z-score of -0.876, the university stands in stark contrast to the national average of 0.288. This is a clear sign of institutional resilience, where effective policies or cultural norms appear to mitigate a risk factor observed at the national level. While high productivity can be legitimate, the national trend suggests a potential imbalance. Rikkyo University's low score indicates a healthy focus on the substance of research over sheer volume, successfully avoiding the pressures that can lead to coercive authorship or the prioritization of metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is even lower than the already low national average of -0.139, signaling total operational silence in this risk area. This demonstrates an exemplary commitment to external, independent peer review and global visibility. By avoiding reliance on in-house journals, the university effectively sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels rather than internal 'fast tracks' that might limit its international reach and credibility.
The university's Z-score of -1.186 marks a significant and positive divergence from the national average of 0.778. This demonstrates a state of preventive isolation, where the institution does not replicate risk dynamics observed in its environment. While the national system shows a tendency toward data fragmentation, Rikkyo University's extremely low score indicates a strong institutional culture that discourages 'salami slicing.' This commitment to publishing complete, coherent studies prioritizes the generation of significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of productivity metrics.
