| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.038 | -0.119 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.634 | -0.208 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.046 | 0.208 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.287 | -0.328 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
2.636 | 0.881 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.795 | 0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.598 | 0.288 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.139 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.346 | 0.778 |
Shiga University of Medical Science presents a robust scientific integrity profile, characterized by exceptional performance in critical areas of research ethics, alongside specific, targeted vulnerabilities that require strategic attention. With an overall integrity score of -0.179, the institution demonstrates a solid foundation, particularly excelling in areas such as preventing retractions, institutional self-citation, and redundant publications, where it outperforms national averages. This commitment to ethical standards is a cornerstone for its notable academic strengths, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly in Chemistry (ranked 18th in Japan), and strong national standings in Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (36th) and Medicine (86th). However, this profile is contrasted by significant alerts in the Rate of Hyper-Authored Output and a considerable Gap between its overall impact and the impact of research it leads. These factors could challenge the university's mission to nurture "world-leading researchers with highest standards of ethics," as they suggest potential dilutions of accountability and a dependency on external leadership for impact. To fully align its operational reality with its aspirational goals, the university is encouraged to leverage its clear strengths in research integrity as a foundation for addressing these specific challenges, thereby ensuring its pursuit of excellence is both impactful and ethically unimpeachable.
The institution's Z-score of 0.038 for this indicator shows a moderate deviation from the national standard in Japan, which has a Z-score of -0.119. This suggests the university is more sensitive than its national peers to practices involving multiple institutional credits. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, a rate higher than the national benchmark warrants a review. It is important to ascertain that these affiliations are the product of genuine collaboration and not strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," ensuring that all declared contributions are transparent and substantive.
With a Z-score of -0.634, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of retracted publications, performing significantly better than the national average of -0.208. This low-profile consistency reflects a commendable absence of risk signals that aligns with, and even surpasses, the national standard. Retractions can be complex, but such a low rate strongly suggests that the university's quality control and supervision mechanisms prior to publication are robust and effective. This performance is a clear indicator of a healthy integrity culture, where methodological rigor and responsible research practices are successfully preventing the types of errors or malpractice that lead to retractions.
The university exhibits a Z-score of -1.046, indicating a near-total absence of institutional self-citation, which stands in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.208. This represents a case of preventive isolation, where the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics prevalent in its environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this exceptionally low value signals that the university's work is validated by broad external scrutiny rather than within an 'echo chamber.' This commitment to engaging with the global scientific community mitigates any risk of endogamous impact inflation and confirms that its academic influence is earned through widespread recognition.
The institution's Z-score of -0.287 is statistically normal and aligns closely with the national average of -0.328. This indicates that the risk level for publishing in discontinued journals is as expected for its context and size. This alignment demonstrates that the university's researchers are exercising appropriate due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. By avoiding journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, the institution effectively protects its resources and reputation from the risks associated with predatory or low-quality publishing practices.
A Z-score of 2.636 places the institution in a significant risk category, markedly accentuating the vulnerability already present in the national system, which has a medium-risk score of 0.881. This is a critical alert. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' fields, such a high score outside those contexts can indicate systemic author list inflation, a practice that dilutes individual accountability and transparency. It is urgent for the institution to investigate these patterns to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and the potential prevalence of 'honorary' or political authorship, which could compromise the integrity of its research record.
The institution's Z-score of 1.795 reveals a high exposure to dependency risk, as it is more than double the national average of 0.809. Although both operate in a medium-risk context, the university's wider gap is a notable alert. This value suggests that a significant portion of the institution's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, rather than structural. It prompts a critical reflection on whether its high-impact metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise primary intellectual leadership, a dynamic that could pose a long-term risk to its research sustainability and autonomy.
With a low-risk Z-score of -0.598, the institution demonstrates considerable resilience against the national trend, where the average score is 0.288 (medium risk). This indicates that the university's internal control mechanisms appear to effectively mitigate the systemic risks of hyperprolificacy observed elsewhere in the country. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful contribution. The university's low score suggests a healthy institutional culture that prioritizes quality over sheer quantity, successfully avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 signifies total operational silence in this area, indicating an absence of risk signals that is even more pronounced than the very low national average of -0.139. This demonstrates a strong institutional preference for publishing in external, independent venues. By avoiding reliance on in-house journals, which can create conflicts of interest, the university ensures its scientific production undergoes standard competitive validation. This practice eliminates the risk of academic endogamy and reinforces the global visibility and credibility of its research.
The university shows strong institutional resilience with a low-risk Z-score of -0.346, which contrasts favorably with the medium-risk national average of 0.778. This suggests that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a risk that is more common systemically. A low rate of redundant output indicates that researchers are not engaging in 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing a single study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This commitment to publishing coherent, significant findings upholds the integrity of the scientific evidence base and shows respect for the academic review system.
