| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.170 | -0.119 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.578 | -0.208 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.835 | 0.208 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.397 | -0.328 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
1.184 | 0.881 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.200 | 0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.816 | 0.288 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.139 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.215 | 0.778 |
Teikyo University presents a robust profile of scientific integrity, with an overall risk score of -0.290 that indicates a performance significantly stronger than the global average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of retracted output, institutional self-citation, and publication in discontinued journals, demonstrating rigorous quality control and a commitment to external validation. While areas such as hyper-authored output and the gap in research impact show moderate risk, they are managed more effectively than many national peers. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, this foundation of integrity supports notable thematic leadership, particularly in Chemistry (ranked 6th in Japan), Agricultural and Biological Sciences (12th), and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (12th). Although the institution's specific mission was not localized for this report, these results align with the universal academic goals of excellence and social responsibility. The identified medium-risk areas, particularly the dependency on external collaborations for impact, represent a strategic challenge to demonstrating structural, self-led excellence. By leveraging its clear strengths in research governance, Teikyo University is well-positioned to address these vulnerabilities and further solidify its reputation as a leader in both scientific discovery and ethical practice.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.170, which is slightly lower than the national average of -0.119. This prudent profile suggests that the university manages its processes with more rigor than the national standard. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the university's controlled approach minimizes the potential for strategic "affiliation shopping" and ensures that institutional credit is attributed with clarity and precision, reinforcing transparency in its collaborative network.
With an exceptionally low Z-score of -0.578 in a country with a low-risk average (-0.208), the institution demonstrates a consistent and effective approach to quality assurance. This absence of risk signals aligns with the national standard for integrity. A high rate of retractions can suggest systemic failures in pre-publication quality control; however, the university's performance indicates that its supervisory and methodological review mechanisms are robust, effectively safeguarding its scientific record and upholding a culture of responsible research conduct.
The university's Z-score of -0.835 marks a significant and positive deviation from the national medium-risk trend (0.208). This preventive isolation shows the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but high rates can signal 'echo chambers' that inflate impact through endogamous validation. Teikyo University's profile, in contrast, reflects a healthy reliance on the broader scientific community for scrutiny and recognition, confirming that its academic influence is earned through external engagement rather than internal dynamics.
The institution's very low Z-score of -0.397, compared to the country's low-risk score of -0.328, points to a consistent and well-informed publication strategy. This low-profile consistency demonstrates that the absence of risk signals aligns with the national standard. Publishing in discontinued journals can expose an institution to severe reputational risks and suggests a lack of due diligence. The university's performance indicates a strong commitment to channeling its scientific production through high-quality, ethically sound media, thereby avoiding predatory practices and protecting its research investment.
With a Z-score of 1.184, the institution's rate of hyper-authored output is higher than the national average of 0.881, placing it in a position of high exposure within a medium-risk context. This suggests the university is more prone to showing alert signals in this area than its peers. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' an elevated rate outside these contexts can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. This signal warrants a review to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and 'honorary' authorship practices that could compromise transparency.
The university's Z-score of 1.200 is notably higher than the national average of 0.809, indicating a high exposure to this particular risk. This wide positive gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is more dependent on external collaborations than is typical for the country. While partnering is essential, an over-reliance on others for impact signals a sustainability risk, where excellence may be perceived as exogenous rather than a result of structural internal capacity. This invites strategic reflection on how to foster more intellectual leadership from within the institution's own research teams.
The institution demonstrates significant resilience in this area, with a low-risk Z-score of -0.816 that stands in contrast to the medium-risk national trend (0.288). This suggests that the university's control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks present in the country. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to issues like coercive authorship. The university's controlled environment indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, protecting the integrity of its scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the university's activity in this indicator is exceptionally low, even when compared to the country's very low-risk baseline (-0.139). This reflects a state of total operational silence, with an absence of risk signals that is even below the national average. By avoiding reliance on in-house journals, the institution sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, where production might bypass independent external peer review. This commitment to external validation enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research.
The university's Z-score of 0.215 is considerably lower than the national average of 0.778, despite both being in the medium-risk category. This indicates a differentiated management approach, where the institution successfully moderates risks that appear more common across the country. A high rate of redundant output often points to 'salami slicing'—fragmenting a study to inflate productivity. The university's ability to contain this practice suggests a greater focus on publishing significant, coherent bodies of work over prioritizing sheer volume, thereby contributing more meaningfully to the scientific record.
