| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.446 | -0.119 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.033 | -0.208 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.294 | 0.208 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.255 | -0.328 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
2.713 | 0.881 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
2.006 | 0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.360 | 0.288 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.139 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.143 | 0.778 |
St Marianna University School of Medicine demonstrates a generally positive scientific integrity profile, reflected in its low overall risk score of 0.010. This performance is anchored in significant strengths, particularly an exceptionally low rate of institutional self-citation and minimal use of in-house journals, which indicates a strong commitment to external validation and global scientific integration. However, this commendable foundation is contrasted by critical vulnerabilities, most notably a significant risk in hyper-authored output and a medium-risk dependency on external collaborators for citation impact. These challenges require strategic attention as they could undermine the institution's mission to "contribute to society through education, research, and medical care" with full "social responsibility" and "compliance." The institution's strong national rankings in core medical fields, including being 37th in Japan for Medicine and 38th for Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, provide a solid reputational base. To ensure this reputation is sustainable and genuinely reflects internal capacity, it is recommended that the University leverage its robust governance in areas like self-citation to develop clearer policies on authorship and foster greater intellectual leadership in its collaborations, thereby fully aligning its operational practices with its stated values of excellence and sustainable growth.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.446, which is more favorable than the national average of -0.119. This result suggests a prudent and well-managed approach to collaborative affiliations. While multiple affiliations are a normal part of modern research, the institution's ability to maintain a lower rate than the national standard indicates rigorous processes that effectively prevent strategic "affiliation shopping" or the artificial inflation of institutional credit, aligning with sound governance practices.
With a Z-score of -0.033, the institution's rate of retractions is slightly higher than the national average of -0.208, although both fall within a low-risk range. This subtle difference signals an incipient vulnerability that warrants preventive attention. Retractions can stem from honest errors, but a rate that edges above the national baseline, however minimal, suggests that a review of pre-publication quality control and supervision mechanisms could be beneficial to reinforce the institutional culture of integrity and prevent any potential issues from escalating.
The institution exhibits an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.294, starkly contrasting with the medium-risk national average of 0.208. This demonstrates a clear preventive isolation from risk dynamics prevalent in the wider environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's very low rate is a strong indicator that it avoids scientific 'echo chambers' and does not inflate its impact through endogamous practices. This commitment to external validation and integration within the global scientific community is a significant institutional strength.
The institution's Z-score of -0.255 is slightly less favorable than the national average of -0.328, placing it in a position of incipient vulnerability despite both scores being in the low-risk category. Publishing in journals that are later discontinued can expose an institution to reputational harm. This minor deviation from the national norm suggests a potential gap in due diligence when selecting publication venues and highlights an opportunity to strengthen researcher training and information literacy to ensure resources are consistently channeled toward high-quality, reputable journals.
The institution's Z-score of 2.713 marks a significant risk and indicates a worrying accentuation of the vulnerabilities already present in the national system (Z-score of 0.881). This high rate of hyper-authorship demands immediate attention. While some fields legitimately require large author lists, such a high score suggests a systemic tendency toward author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability and transparency. It is critical to audit authorship practices to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and potentially inappropriate 'honorary' or political attributions that compromise scientific integrity.
With a Z-score of 2.006, the institution shows high exposure to dependency risk, a figure substantially higher than the national medium-risk average of 0.809. This wide positive gap signals a potential sustainability risk, suggesting that the institution's scientific prestige may be overly dependent on external partners rather than its own structural capacity. This finding invites a deep reflection on whether its high-impact metrics are the result of genuine internal innovation or strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The institution demonstrates notable resilience with a low-risk Z-score of -0.360, effectively mitigating the medium-risk trend observed at the national level (Z-score of 0.288). This indicates that institutional control mechanisms are successfully promoting a healthy balance between productivity and quality. By avoiding extreme individual publication volumes, the institution sidesteps the risks of coercive authorship or metric-driven behaviors, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific record and fostering a more sustainable research culture.
The institution's performance in this area is exemplary, with a Z-score of -0.268 indicating total operational silence, even below the country's very low-risk baseline of -0.139. This near-absence of publishing in its own journals is a powerful testament to its commitment to independent, external peer review. By avoiding potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, the institution ensures its research is validated through standard competitive channels, maximizing its global visibility and credibility.
The institution shows evidence of differentiated management in this area, with a medium-risk Z-score of 0.143 that is considerably better than the national average of 0.778. This suggests that while the institution is not immune to the systemic pattern of data fragmentation, it moderates the risk more effectively than its national peers. A high rate of redundant output, or 'salami slicing,' can distort scientific evidence by dividing studies into minimal publishable units. The institution's relative control is positive, but continued monitoring is needed to further encourage the publication of complete, significant works.
