| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.259 | -0.119 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.418 | -0.208 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.055 | 0.208 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.270 | -0.328 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
1.505 | 0.881 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.225 | 0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.947 | 0.288 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
0.055 | -0.139 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.225 | 0.778 |
Sapporo Medical University demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in a low overall risk score of -0.133. The institution exhibits notable strengths in maintaining very low rates of multiple affiliations and retracted publications, indicating strong governance and quality control. Furthermore, it shows commendable resilience by effectively mitigating national trends toward high institutional self-citation and redundant output. However, areas requiring strategic attention have been identified, particularly a significant rate of hyper-authored output and medium-risk levels in hyperprolific authorship and publication in institutional journals, which are notably above the national average. These findings are contextualized by the University's strong positioning in key thematic areas, as evidenced by SCImago Institutions Rankings data in Medicine, Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics. The identified risks, especially those related to authorship and publication channels, could potentially challenge the institutional mission "to promote independent research activities" and provide a "high-level research ability." Practices that dilute individual accountability or bypass rigorous external review may conflict with the pursuit of independent excellence. Therefore, a proactive review of authorship policies and publication strategies is recommended to ensure that operational practices fully align with the University's core mission of fostering high-impact, independent scholarship.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is -1.259, positioning it in a very low-risk category, well below the national average of -0.119. This demonstrates a clear and consistent approach to institutional representation that aligns with the low-risk national standard. The absence of risk signals suggests that the university's affiliation practices are transparent and stable. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the university's low rate confirms it does not exhibit patterns associated with strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," reinforcing its commitment to straightforward academic accounting.
With a Z-score of -0.418, the institution maintains a very low rate of retracted publications, consistent with the low-risk national environment (Z-score: -0.208). This alignment indicates that the university's pre-publication quality control mechanisms are robust and effective. Retractions can sometimes signify responsible supervision through the correction of honest errors; however, a minimal rate like this strongly suggests a systemic culture of integrity and methodological rigor that prevents errors and potential malpractice from occurring in the first place, safeguarding the institution's scientific reputation.
The institution shows a low rate of self-citation (Z-score: -0.055), demonstrating notable resilience against the medium-level risk observed across the country (Z-score: 0.208). This suggests that internal control mechanisms are successfully mitigating a systemic national trend. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but by keeping its rate low, the university avoids creating scientific 'echo chambers' and the risk of endogamous impact inflation. This performance indicates that the institution's academic influence is validated by the global scientific community, not just by internal dynamics.
The institution's rate of publication in discontinued journals is low (Z-score: -0.270), yet it is slightly above the national average (Z-score: -0.328). This small deviation points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring. Publishing in journals that do not meet international ethical or quality standards can expose the institution to severe reputational risks. Although the current level is not alarming, this signal suggests that enhancing information literacy among researchers could be beneficial to ensure due diligence in selecting dissemination channels and avoid any potential waste of resources on low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of 1.505, the institution exhibits a significant rate of hyper-authored publications, a figure that accentuates the medium-level risk already present in the national system (Z-score: 0.881). This pattern suggests the institution is amplifying a national vulnerability. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' fields, a high rate outside these contexts can be a red flag for author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This finding calls for a careful review of authorship practices to distinguish between necessary large-scale collaboration and 'honorary' or political authorship that could compromise research integrity.
The institution presents a medium-level gap between its total research impact and the impact of publications where it holds a leadership role (Z-score: 0.225). However, this gap is considerably smaller than the national average (Z-score: 0.809), indicating a differentiated and more effective management of this risk. This suggests the university moderates a common national dependency on external partners for impact. By maintaining a smaller gap, the institution demonstrates a healthier balance, where its scientific prestige is less reliant on exogenous factors and more reflective of its own structural capacity for intellectual leadership, thus ensuring greater sustainability of its reputation.
The institution's rate of hyperprolific authors registers at a medium-risk level (Z-score: 0.947), a value that indicates higher exposure compared to the national average (Z-score: 0.288). This suggests the university is more prone to this risk factor than its peers. While high productivity can reflect leadership, extreme publication volumes challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and can signal an imbalance between quantity and quality. This alert points to potential risks such as coercive authorship or assigning credit without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record and warrant closer examination.
The institution's rate of publication in its own journals is at a medium level (Z-score: 0.055), which stands out as an unusual alert when compared to the very low-risk national standard (Z-score: -0.139). This discrepancy requires a review of its causes. Over-reliance on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest, as the institution acts as both judge and party, and raises the risk of academic endogamy where research may bypass independent external peer review. This practice could limit global visibility and may indicate the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts without standard competitive validation.
With a low Z-score of -0.225, the institution effectively resists the medium-level risk of redundant publications that is prevalent nationally (Z-score: 0.778). This performance highlights strong institutional resilience and effective governance over publication ethics. By avoiding the practice of dividing a coherent study into 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity, the university ensures its research output contributes significant new knowledge. This protects the integrity of the scientific evidence base and demonstrates a commitment to quality over quantity.
