| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.337 | -0.119 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.540 | -0.208 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.431 | 0.208 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.378 | -0.328 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
2.405 | 0.881 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.345 | 0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.753 | 0.288 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.139 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.086 | 0.778 |
Shinshu University presents a balanced integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.009, indicating general alignment with expected scientific conduct. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining low-risk practices, particularly in its minimal rates of retracted output, publication in discontinued journals, and use of institutional journals, showcasing robust quality control and a commitment to external validation. However, this solid foundation is contrasted by notable vulnerabilities. The most critical concern is a significant risk in Hyper-Authored Output, which far exceeds the national average. Additionally, areas requiring strategic monitoring include a higher-than-average tendency towards Institutional Self-Citation, a concerning gap between overall impact and the impact of institution-led research, and a notable rate of Hyperprolific Authors. These risk factors could potentially undermine the university's strong thematic positioning, as evidenced by its high national rankings in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly in Energy, Physics and Astronomy, and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology. The identified risks, especially those related to authorship and impact dependency, challenge the core tenets of the university's mission to "cultivate industry through intellectual properties" and "benefit all people" with genuine accomplishments. An overemphasis on publication volume and collaborative credit without clear leadership could dilute the perceived value and integrity of these contributions. Therefore, a proactive strategy is recommended to leverage the university's clear strengths in research ethics to develop targeted policies that address authorship transparency and foster greater intellectual leadership, ensuring that its scientific output fully aligns with its mission of excellence and social responsibility.
The institution's Z-score of -0.337 is lower than the national average of -0.119, indicating a prudent and well-managed approach to academic collaboration. This suggests that the university's processes are more rigorous than the national standard. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the university's controlled rate signals a healthy ecosystem that avoids strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” ensuring that collaborative credit is transparent and appropriately assigned.
With a Z-score of -0.540, significantly below the national average of -0.208, the institution demonstrates an exemplary record in publication reliability. This low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with a low-risk national standard, points to highly effective quality control mechanisms. Retractions can be complex, but such a low rate strongly suggests that issues are being prevented systemically before publication, reflecting a mature integrity culture and a commitment to methodological rigor that protects the scientific record.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 0.431, which is higher than the national average of 0.208. This indicates a high exposure to this particular risk, suggesting the center is more prone to these signals than its peers. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, this elevated rate warns of a potential for scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This dynamic creates a risk of endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence may appear oversized due to internal citation patterns rather than broad recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution's Z-score of -0.378 is well below the national average of -0.328, reflecting a strong commitment to publishing in reputable venues. This performance demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the university's near-absence of risk signals aligns with the national standard. A sporadic presence in such journals can occur, but this very low rate indicates that the institution exercises excellent due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, effectively avoiding reputational risks associated with 'predatory' or low-quality practices and ensuring research resources are well-spent.
With a Z-score of 2.405, the institution shows a significant risk level that starkly contrasts with the national average of 0.881. This finding indicates a risk accentuation, where the university amplifies a vulnerability already present in the national system. In fields outside of 'Big Science,' such extensive author lists can be a red flag for author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This high value serves as a critical signal to urgently investigate authorship practices and distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and potentially inappropriate 'honorary' attributions.
The institution's Z-score of 1.345 is notably higher than the national average of 0.809, signaling a high exposure to dependency on external collaboration for impact. This wide positive gap suggests a potential sustainability risk, where the university's scientific prestige may be more exogenous than structural. The data invites 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 hinder long-term scientific autonomy.
The institution's Z-score of 0.753 is considerably higher than the national average of 0.288, indicating a high exposure to risks associated with extreme publication volumes. This rate alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality. Extreme individual productivity challenges the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and can point to underlying issues such as coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or the assignment of authorship without real participation. This dynamic prioritizes metric accumulation over the integrity of the scientific record and warrants a review of institutional pressures and incentives.
With a Z-score of -0.268, which is even lower than the country's very low average of -0.139, the institution demonstrates a total operational silence in this risk area. This exceptional performance shows an absence of risk signals that surpasses the already strong national standard. By avoiding dependence on in-house journals, the university effectively mitigates conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This commitment to independent external peer review enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, ensuring its output is validated through standard competitive channels.
The institution's Z-score of 0.086 is substantially lower than the national average of 0.778, indicating differentiated and effective management of this risk. This performance shows that the university successfully moderates a practice that appears more common at the national level. A low value in this indicator suggests a focus on substance over volume, discouraging the practice of dividing a coherent study into 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity. This approach upholds the integrity of the scientific evidence base and respects the academic review system.
