| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.895 | -0.119 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.353 | -0.208 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.602 | 0.208 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.106 | -0.328 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.913 | 0.881 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.719 | 0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | 0.288 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.139 |
|
Redundant Output
|
14.839 | 0.778 |
Seikei University demonstrates a dualistic profile in its research integrity landscape, characterized by areas of exceptional governance alongside a critical vulnerability. With an overall score of 0.620, the institution shows robust control and very low risk in practices such as multiple affiliations, hyperprolific authorship, and publishing in institutional journals, indicating a strong foundational integrity framework. However, this is significantly undermined by a critical-level risk in redundant output (salami slicing), complemented by medium-level alerts in institutional self-citation and publication in discontinued journals. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university has established notable research capacity in fields including Chemistry, Computer Science, and Mathematics. Although the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, the extreme rate of redundant publication directly conflicts with universal academic principles of excellence and social responsibility. This practice threatens to devalue the university's scholarly contributions, including those in its areas of thematic strength, by prioritizing publication volume over substantive scientific advancement. It is strongly recommended that the university leverages its clear strengths in research governance to implement a targeted strategy aimed at curbing redundant publication, thereby realigning its research culture with the pursuit of impactful and original knowledge.
The institution's Z-score of -0.895 is well below the national average of -0.119, indicating a very low rate of multiple affiliations. This result suggests a clear and transparent policy regarding author affiliations, aligning with the low-risk national context. The absence of signals in this area confirms that affiliations are being used legitimately for collaborations. While multiple affiliations can sometimes be used to inflate institutional credit, the university's data points towards a culture of straightforward academic accounting where partnerships are represented with integrity.
With a Z-score of -0.353, the institution shows a lower rate of retracted publications compared to the national average of -0.208. This prudent profile suggests that the university's quality control and supervision mechanisms are more rigorous than the national standard. A high rate of retractions can suggest that quality control mechanisms are failing systemically. In contrast, this low value indicates that the institution's pre-publication review processes are effective at maintaining methodological rigor and upholding the integrity of the scientific record.
The university's Z-score for institutional self-citation is 0.602, noticeably higher than the national average of 0.208. This indicates a greater tendency toward internal citation patterns compared to its national peers. While a certain level of self-citation is natural to reflect ongoing research lines, this elevated rate signals a potential risk of an academic 'echo chamber.' It suggests that the institution's work may not be receiving sufficient external scrutiny, potentially leading to an endogamous inflation of its perceived impact, where influence is driven more by internal dynamics than by broader recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 1.106 for publications in discontinued journals, a significant deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.328. This finding is a critical alert, suggesting a greater institutional vulnerability to selecting questionable dissemination channels. A high proportion of output in such journals indicates that due diligence in publication choices may be lacking, exposing the university to severe reputational risks. This pattern suggests an urgent need to enhance information literacy among researchers to avoid channeling valuable work into 'predatory' or low-quality media that do not meet international ethical standards.
The university's Z-score of -0.913 for hyper-authored publications is significantly lower than the national average of 0.881, which sits at a medium risk level. This demonstrates strong institutional resilience, as the university effectively mitigates a risk that is more prevalent across the country. The data suggests that the institution's authorship practices are well-governed, successfully distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and the potential for author list inflation. This control helps ensure that individual accountability and transparency are maintained in its publications.
The institution's Z-score of 0.719 indicates a more moderate gap between its overall publication impact and the impact of its leadership-driven research when compared to the national average of 0.809. This suggests a differentiated management approach that successfully reduces the risk of impact dependency. A very wide gap can signal that scientific prestige is dependent on external partners rather than being structural. This institution's more contained value reflects a healthier balance, indicating a growing internal capacity for high-impact research where it exercises intellectual leadership.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution shows a near-total absence of hyperprolific authorship, standing in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.288. This demonstrates a preventive isolation from a problematic national trend. The data strongly suggests that the university fosters an environment where the balance between quantity and quality is maintained. By avoiding extreme individual publication volumes, the institution sidesteps risks such as coercive or honorary authorship, thereby upholding the integrity of its scientific record and ensuring that authorship reflects meaningful intellectual contribution.
The university's Z-score of -0.268 for publications in its own journals is even lower than the already minimal national average of -0.139. This signifies a state of total operational silence in this risk area. The data confirms that the institution overwhelmingly favors external, independent peer review for its research dissemination. This practice avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels and maximizing its potential for global visibility and impact.
The institution's Z-score of 14.839 for redundant output is exceptionally high, drastically amplifying a vulnerability that is only moderately present at the national level (Z-score of 0.778). This critical finding points to a systemic practice of 'salami slicing,' where coherent studies are likely being fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice not only overburdens the peer review system but also distorts the scientific evidence base. An urgent review of publication and evaluation policies is required to realign research incentives with the goal of producing significant, original knowledge rather than maximizing publication volume.
