| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.683 | -0.119 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.428 | -0.208 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
2.225 | 0.208 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.126 | -0.328 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.737 | 0.881 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.369 | 0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | 0.288 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.139 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.371 | 0.778 |
The University of Shiga Prefecture demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.352. This performance indicates that the institution's research practices are, on the whole, significantly more secure than the global average. Key strengths are evident in areas of profound importance for research quality and sustainability, including an exceptionally low rate of hyperprolific authors, a minimal gap between its overall impact and the impact of its internally-led research, and a negligible reliance on institutional journals. These factors suggest a culture that prioritizes quality over quantity and fosters genuine intellectual leadership. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university shows a particular strength in Agricultural and Biological Sciences, a field directly aligned with its mission to "solve complex environmental problems." However, this mission is potentially undermined by two areas of medium risk: a high rate of institutional self-citation and a concerning level of output in discontinued journals. These vulnerabilities could foster scientific isolation and damage credibility, contradicting the collaborative, globally-validated approach required to address complex challenges. To fully align its operational integrity with its strategic ambitions, the university is advised to focus on strengthening its external validation and improving due diligence in publication venue selection, thereby ensuring its research not only advances knowledge but does so with unimpeachable transparency and impact.
The University of Shiga Prefecture shows a Z-score of -0.683, which is lower than the national average of -0.119. This indicates a prudent and rigorous approach to managing author affiliations. Even within a national context of low risk, the institution demonstrates superior control, suggesting that its collaborative frameworks are well-defined and transparent. This prudent profile minimizes the risk of strategic "affiliation shopping" and ensures that institutional credit is claimed legitimately, reflecting genuine partnerships rather than attempts to inflate rankings.
With a Z-score of -0.428, the institution's rate of retracted publications is exceptionally low, particularly when compared to the country's low-risk score of -0.208. This low-profile consistency suggests that the university’s internal quality control and supervision mechanisms are highly effective. An absence of retractions at this level is a strong indicator of a healthy integrity culture, where potential errors are caught and corrected prior to publication, preventing the systemic failures or recurring malpractice that a higher rate might signal.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 2.225 in institutional self-citation, a figure significantly higher than the national average of 0.208. This result indicates a high exposure to the risks associated with academic insularity. While a certain level of self-citation is normal, this disproportionately high rate signals a potential 'echo chamber' where research is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This dynamic presents a serious risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting the institution's perceived academic influence may be oversized by internal citation practices rather than by broader recognition from the global scientific community, warranting a strategic review of its dissemination and collaboration patterns.
The university's Z-score for publications in discontinued journals is 0.126, placing it in a medium-risk category that moderately deviates from the low-risk national standard (-0.328). This finding suggests a greater institutional sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers. A high proportion of output in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It indicates that a segment of the university's research is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational damage and signaling an urgent need to enhance information literacy among its researchers to avoid wasting resources on predatory or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of -0.737, the institution displays a low rate of hyper-authored publications, demonstrating notable resilience against the country's medium-risk trend (0.881). This suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks of authorship inflation observed nationally. By maintaining transparency and accountability in author lists, the institution successfully distinguishes between necessary large-scale collaboration and questionable practices like 'honorary' or political authorship, thereby safeguarding the principle of individual accountability.
The institution shows an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.369 in this indicator, signifying that its research impact is driven by work where it holds intellectual leadership. This performance represents a preventive isolation from the national trend, where a medium-risk score of 0.809 suggests a wider dependency on external partners for impact. The university's result is a powerful testament to its structural and sustainable scientific prestige, confirming that its excellence metrics are derived from genuine internal capacity rather than a strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not lead.
The university's Z-score of -1.413 is in the very low-risk category, indicating a near-total absence of hyperprolific authors. This effectively isolates the institution from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (0.288). This finding points to a research culture that values substantive intellectual contribution over sheer publication volume. By avoiding the pressures that can lead to coercive authorship or data fragmentation, the institution upholds the integrity of the scientific record and fosters a healthier balance between productivity and quality.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution's reliance on its own journals is even lower than the country's already minimal average of -0.139. This represents a state of total operational silence for this risk indicator. This strong commitment to publishing in external, independent venues demonstrates a mature understanding of the importance of avoiding conflicts of interest. By shunning academic endogamy, the university ensures its research undergoes standard competitive validation, maximizing its global visibility and credibility.
The institution's Z-score of -0.371 for redundant output is low, showcasing institutional resilience when compared to the medium-risk national average of 0.778. This suggests that the university's control mechanisms or research culture effectively discourages the practice of 'salami slicing.' By promoting the publication of coherent, significant studies over artificially fragmented 'minimal publishable units,' the institution contributes to a more robust and less cluttered scientific record, prioritizing the generation of new knowledge over the inflation of productivity metrics.
