| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.064 | -0.119 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.127 | -0.208 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.355 | 0.208 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.037 | -0.328 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.404 | 0.881 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.134 | 0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.428 | 0.288 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.139 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.252 | 0.778 |
Shimane University presents a balanced scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.037 indicating performance closely aligned with global benchmarks. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in managing risks associated with academic endogamy, such as institutional self-citation and publication in its own journals, where it performs better than the national average. It also effectively moderates hyper-authorship and redundant publication practices. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a higher-than-national-average rate of multiple affiliations and a notable dependency on external collaborations for research impact. These operational characteristics support a strong research portfolio, with SCImago Institutions Rankings data highlighting particular excellence in Social Sciences, Agricultural and Biological Sciences, and Environmental Science. This thematic focus aligns directly with the university's mission to foster a "prosperous society in harmony with nature." However, the identified risk of impact dependency could challenge the goal of having its "individuality shin[ing] forth from the local community to the world." Ensuring that collaborations build internal capacity, rather than just borrowing prestige, is crucial for fulfilling the mission's call for authentic global contribution and leadership. A proactive strategy to reinforce authorship and affiliation policies, while developing intellectual leadership in key collaborations, will solidify the university's reputation and ensure its scientific contributions are both impactful and sustainable.
The institution's Z-score of 0.064 is notably higher than the national average of -0.119, indicating a greater sensitivity to practices involving multiple affiliations compared to its national peers. This deviation warrants a review of internal policies. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships between universities and teaching hospitals, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” The university should analyze the nature of these affiliations to ensure they represent genuine, substantive collaborations that align with its strategic goals, rather than practices that could dilute its unique institutional identity.
With a Z-score of -0.127, Shimane University's rate of retracted output is low but slightly higher than the national average of -0.208. This suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants preventive monitoring. Retractions are complex events, and a rate significantly higher than the average can alert to a vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor. Although the current level is not alarming, this slight elevation suggests that a review of pre-publication quality control mechanisms could be beneficial to prevent any potential systemic failures and uphold the highest standards of scientific responsibility.
The university demonstrates strong institutional resilience in managing self-citation, with a Z-score of -0.355 that contrasts sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.208. This indicates that the institution's control mechanisms are effective in mitigating a systemic risk prevalent in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university successfully avoids the 'echo chambers' that can arise from disproportionately high rates. This low value confirms that the institution's academic influence is validated by the broader global community, not just inflated by internal dynamics, reflecting a healthy integration into external scientific discourse.
The institution's Z-score of -0.037 for publications in discontinued journals, while low, is higher than the national average of -0.328. This gap points to an incipient vulnerability that should be addressed. Sporadic presence in such journals may be due to lack of information, but a rising proportion constitutes an alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. The university's score suggests a need to reinforce information literacy among its researchers to ensure they can effectively identify and avoid predatory or low-quality publishing venues, thereby protecting the institution's reputation and research investment.
Shimane University shows effective management of authorship practices, with a Z-score of 0.404, which is considerably lower than the national average of 0.881. This demonstrates an ability to moderate a risk that appears more common across the country. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' a high Z-score outside these contexts can indicate author list inflation, diluting individual accountability. The university's more controlled rate suggests a healthier approach to authorship that distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and 'honorary' practices, thereby promoting greater transparency.
The university's Z-score of 1.134 for this indicator is significantly higher than the national average of 0.809, revealing a high exposure to impact dependency. This wide positive gap—where global impact is high but the impact of research led by the institution itself is comparatively low—signals a sustainability risk. It suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is largely dependent and exogenous, not structural. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether its high-impact metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from a positioning in collaborations where Shimane University does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The university displays strong institutional resilience regarding hyperprolific authors, with a Z-score of -0.428 that stands in stark contrast to the national average of 0.288. This suggests that institutional policies or culture effectively curb a risk present elsewhere in the country. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation. The university's very low score indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of productivity metrics.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the university's rate of publication in its own journals is exceptionally low, falling even below the already low national average of -0.139. This represents a state of total operational silence for this risk indicator. While in-house journals can be valuable, excessive dependence on them raises conflicts of interest. The university's minimal reliance on these channels demonstrates a strong commitment to independent, external peer review, ensuring its scientific production is validated competitively on a global stage and avoiding any perception of academic endogamy.
Shimane University demonstrates differentiated management of publication practices, with a Z-score of 0.252 for redundant output, significantly lower than the national average of 0.778. This indicates the institution successfully moderates a risk that is more prevalent nationally. Massive and recurring bibliographic overlap between simultaneous publications can indicate data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' The university's lower score suggests a culture that prioritizes the publication of significant, coherent studies over artificially boosting publication volume, thereby contributing more meaningfully to the scientific record and respecting the integrity of the review system.
