| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.116 | -0.119 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.428 | -0.208 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.638 | 0.208 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.163 | -0.328 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
1.164 | 0.881 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.965 | 0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
1.792 | 0.288 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.139 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.029 | 0.778 |
The Jikei University School of Medicine presents a profile of solid scientific integrity, marked by an overall risk score of 0.129, with significant strengths in critical areas such as its exceptionally low rates of retracted output and publications in institutional journals. The institution also demonstrates effective mitigation of risks related to institutional self-citation and redundant output when compared to national trends. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a moderate deviation from national norms in multiple affiliations and a high exposure to risks associated with hyper-authorship, hyperprolific authors, and a dependency on external collaborations for impact. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's research excellence is particularly notable in Psychology (ranked 16th in Japan), Medicine (30th), Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (33rd), and Agricultural and Biological Sciences (39th). While the institution's specific mission was not localized for this report, the identified risks in authorship and impact dependency could challenge any commitment to research excellence and social responsibility. These practices, if unaddressed, may undermine the transparency and credibility essential for a leading medical institution. The university's strong foundational integrity provides an excellent opportunity to refine its policies on authorship and collaboration, thereby reinforcing its leadership position and ensuring its practices fully align with its demonstrated research strengths.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 0.116, which contrasts with the national average of -0.119. This represents a moderate deviation, indicating that the university shows a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the observed divergence from a low-risk national environment suggests that the institution's rate is notable. This warrants a closer review to ensure that these affiliations consistently reflect substantive collaboration rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," which could misrepresent the university's collaborative footprint.
With a Z-score of -0.428, significantly lower than the country's Z-score of -0.208, the institution demonstrates an exemplary record in this area. This low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals surpasses even the low-risk national standard, points to highly effective pre-publication quality control and supervision. A rate significantly below the average is a strong positive signal, suggesting that the institution's integrity culture and methodological rigor are robust, successfully preventing the systemic failures or recurring malpractice that a higher rate might indicate. This reflects a mature and responsible approach to research governance.
The institution's Z-score of -0.638 stands in stark contrast to the national average of 0.208, showcasing remarkable institutional resilience. While the country as a whole shows a medium-risk tendency towards self-citation, the university's control mechanisms appear to effectively mitigate this systemic risk. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's low rate demonstrates that it successfully avoids the formation of scientific "echo chambers." This indicates that its academic influence is validated by the global community through external scrutiny, rather than being inflated by endogamous internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.163, compared to the country's -0.328, signals an incipient vulnerability. Although both scores fall within a low-risk category, the university's rate is slightly higher than the national average, suggesting a trend that warrants proactive monitoring. This minor signal serves as a reminder of the critical importance of due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. An increase in this indicator could expose the institution to severe reputational risks associated with "predatory" or low-quality publishing, highlighting a continuous need for information literacy to prevent the misallocation of research efforts.
With a Z-score of 1.164, which is higher than the national average of 0.881, the institution shows high exposure to this risk factor. Although both the university and the country operate within a medium-risk context, the institution is more prone to publishing works with extensive author lists. This elevated rate serves as a signal to carefully distinguish between necessary massive collaboration, common in some fields, and potential author list inflation. It is crucial to ensure that authorship practices do not dilute individual accountability or include "honorary" authors, which would compromise transparency and the integrity of the research record.
The institution's Z-score of 1.965 is substantially higher than the national average of 0.809, indicating high exposure to this particular vulnerability. This wide positive gap suggests that while the university is involved in high-impact research, a significant portion of that impact comes from publications where it does not hold a leadership role. This signals a potential sustainability risk, as its scientific prestige appears more dependent and exogenous than structural. The data invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from advantageous positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The institution's Z-score of 1.792 is significantly higher than the national average of 0.288, indicating a high exposure to the risks associated with extreme publication volumes. This pronounced incidence of hyperprolific authors alerts to a potential imbalance between quantity and quality. Such extreme productivity challenges the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and can be a symptom of problematic dynamics like coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or the assignment of authorship without real participation. These practices prioritize metric inflation over the integrity of the scientific record and warrant careful internal review.
The institution demonstrates total operational silence in this area with a Z-score of -0.268, which is even lower than the country's very low average of -0.139. This absence of risk signals, falling below the national baseline, is an indicator of best practice. By avoiding dependence on in-house journals, the university effectively sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This commitment ensures that its scientific production consistently undergoes independent external peer review, thereby maximizing its global visibility and credibility.
With a Z-score of 0.029, the institution shows effective and differentiated management of a risk that is more prevalent nationally (country Z-score of 0.778). While the national system shows a medium-risk tendency towards this practice, the university's significantly lower score indicates that its policies or culture successfully discourage data fragmentation. This suggests a focus on publishing coherent, significant studies rather than artificially inflating productivity by dividing research into "minimal publishable units." This approach upholds the integrity of scientific evidence and respects the resources of the peer review system.
