| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.788 | -0.119 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.540 | -0.208 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.335 | 0.208 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.150 | -0.328 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
1.858 | 0.881 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.642 | 0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.441 | 0.288 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.139 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.158 | 0.778 |
Yamagata University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.176 indicating a performance that is well-aligned with international best practices. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in areas critical to research quality, including exceptionally low rates of retracted output and publications in institutional journals, alongside a commendable resilience against national trends in self-citation and hyperprolific authorship. These strengths are complemented by high-ranking research performance in key thematic areas, with SCImago Institutions Rankings data placing the university among Japan's top institutions in Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, Energy, Physics and Astronomy, and Chemistry. However, strategic attention is required for two notable vulnerabilities: a significant rate of hyper-authored output and a medium-risk dependency on external collaborations for impact. These indicators could challenge the university's mission to be a "driving force" under "sound university management," as they may suggest a dilution of accountability and an over-reliance on external leadership. By proactively addressing these specific areas, Yamagata University can fortify its already strong foundation of integrity, ensuring its regional leadership is built upon transparent, sustainable, and internally-driven scientific excellence.
With a Z-score of -0.788, significantly lower than the national average of -0.119, the university demonstrates a prudent and well-managed approach to researcher affiliations. This result suggests that the institution's processes are managed with more rigor than the national standard. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution's comparatively low rate indicates a clear and transparent policy that effectively avoids strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” reinforcing its commitment to accurate academic representation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.540 for retracted output is exceptionally low, positioning it favorably against the national average of -0.208. This absence of risk signals aligns with the national standard of low risk and points to highly effective pre-publication quality control mechanisms. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly lower than the global average, as seen here, is a strong indicator of a healthy integrity culture, suggesting that issues of methodological rigor or potential malpractice are successfully identified and corrected before they enter the scientific record.
Yamagata University exhibits strong institutional resilience, with a Z-score of -0.335 in contrast to the country's medium-risk average of 0.208. This performance indicates that the university's control mechanisms effectively mitigate the systemic risks of academic endogamy observed nationally. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution’s low rate demonstrates that it successfully avoids the formation of 'echo chambers' and ensures its work is validated by the broader scientific community, thereby confirming that its academic influence is based on global recognition rather than inflated by internal dynamics.
The university's Z-score of -0.150 for output in discontinued journals, while low, is slightly above the national average of -0.328, signaling an incipient vulnerability that warrants review. A high proportion of publications in such journals can be a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This minor deviation suggests a need to reinforce information literacy among researchers to ensure they can consistently identify and avoid predatory or low-quality publishing venues, thereby safeguarding institutional resources and reputation.
The institution's Z-score of 1.858 for hyper-authored output is a significant concern, as it sharply amplifies the medium-risk vulnerability already present in the national system (Z-score: 0.881). Outside of "Big Science" disciplines where extensive author lists are standard, such a high rate can indicate systemic author list inflation, a practice that dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This serves as a critical signal to urgently distinguish between necessary massive collaborations and the potential prevalence of "honorary" or political authorship practices that compromise the integrity of the research record.
With a Z-score of 1.642, the university shows a high exposure to impact dependency, a risk more pronounced than in the national context (Z-score: 0.809). This wide positive gap—where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is comparatively low—signals a potential sustainability risk. It suggests that a significant portion of the university's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, rather than structurally generated from within. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics stem from genuine internal capacity or from positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The university demonstrates notable institutional resilience with a Z-score of -0.441, contrasting sharply with the national medium-risk average of 0.288. This indicates that its internal controls effectively mitigate the risks associated with extreme publication volumes. While high productivity can be legitimate, the institution's low score suggests a culture that prioritizes quality over quantity, successfully discouraging practices such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without meaningful participation, thereby upholding the integrity of its scientific contributions.
The institution shows total operational silence in this indicator, with a Z-score of -0.268 that is even lower than the country's very low-risk average of -0.139. This complete absence of risk signals reflects a strong commitment to external, independent peer review. By avoiding dependence on in-house journals, which can create conflicts of interest, the university ensures its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels, thereby maximizing its global visibility and reinforcing its academic credibility.
Yamagata University displays differentiated management in this area, with a Z-score of 0.158 that, while indicating a medium risk, is substantially lower than the national average of 0.778. This shows the institution effectively moderates the risk of "salami slicing"—the practice of fragmenting a single study into multiple minimal publications to inflate output. By containing this practice more effectively than its national peers, the university demonstrates a commitment to publishing significant, coherent knowledge, thereby protecting the integrity of the scientific evidence and reducing the burden on the peer review system.
