| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.412 | -0.412 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.981 | 0.981 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.222 | 1.222 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.343 | -0.343 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.370 | -1.370 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.229 | 0.229 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -1.413 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
3.660 | 3.660 |
Kim Il Sung University presents a complex scientific integrity profile, characterized by a low overall score of 0.203 that reflects a perfect alignment with the national scientific landscape of North Korea. The institution demonstrates significant operational strengths, with very low risk in areas such as publication in discontinued journals, hyper-authorship, hyperprolific authors, and use of institutional journals. However, these strengths are counterbalanced by critical vulnerabilities, particularly significant risks in the rates of retracted output and redundant publications (salami slicing), and medium risks in institutional self-citation and dependency on external collaborations for impact. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university holds a leadership position nationally, ranking first in North Korea in both Earth and Planetary Sciences and Mathematics. While this thematic leadership is notable, the identified integrity risks, especially concerning retractions and data fragmentation, directly challenge the universal academic mission of pursuing excellence and social responsibility. These practices undermine the credibility of research and contradict the core value of generating reliable knowledge. To secure its national leadership and build international trust, the university should leverage its procedural discipline to implement robust pre-publication quality controls and authorship policies, transforming its current challenges into a foundation for sustainable and reputable scientific growth.
The institution's Z-score of -0.412 is identical to the national average of -0.412, indicating a risk level that is statistically normal and perfectly aligned with its national context. This suggests that the university's patterns of collaboration and researcher affiliation are standard for its environment. While multiple affiliations can sometimes be used to inflate institutional credit, the low risk level here suggests that the current practices are in line with legitimate academic mobility and partnerships, showing no signs of "affiliation shopping" that would warrant concern.
With a Z-score of 0.981, identical to the country's score, the institution is situated within a standard crisis, reflecting a generalized and critical risk dynamic at the national level. This high rate is a serious alert that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. Retractions are complex, but a rate significantly above the global average, as seen here, points to a deep vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This suggests the possibility of recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate and thorough qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation.
The institution's Z-score of 1.222 mirrors the national average, pointing to a systemic pattern where the medium risk level likely reflects shared practices or evaluation policies at a national scale. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this elevated rate signals a potential for concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This trend warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by broader recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution demonstrates exceptional performance with a Z-score of -0.343, which is in perfect alignment with the country's score of -0.343. This reflects a state of integrity synchrony, indicating total alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security in this regard. The very low rate shows that the institution exercises strong due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, effectively avoiding predatory or low-quality journals. This practice protects its research from reputational risk and ensures that scientific resources are invested in credible and enduring publications.
With a Z-score of -1.370, identical to the national average, the institution shows a complete absence of risk signals in this area, achieving integrity synchrony with its environment. This very low score indicates that the university's authorship practices are transparent and accountable, without evidence of author list inflation. It suggests that, outside of legitimate "Big Science" contexts, the institution successfully avoids honorary or political authorship, ensuring that credit is assigned appropriately and individual contributions remain clear.
The institution's Z-score of 0.229 is identical to the country's average, indicating that its medium risk level is part of a systemic pattern common at the national level. This gap suggests that a significant portion of the institution's scientific prestige is dependent on external partners and is therefore exogenous, not structural. This creates a sustainability risk, raising questions about whether its high-impact metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where the university does not exercise primary intellectual leadership. This invites a strategic reflection on fostering and promoting internally-led research.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413, matching the national average, signifies a state of integrity synchrony and a complete absence of risk in this indicator. This very low score is a positive sign that the university maintains a healthy balance between productivity and quality. It indicates an environment free from the pressures that can lead to coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, ensuring that the focus remains on the integrity of the scientific record rather than purely on metrics.
With a Z-score of -0.268, identical to the national average, the institution demonstrates integrity synchrony and a very low risk of academic endogamy. This indicates that the university is not excessively dependent on its in-house journals, thereby avoiding potential conflicts of interest where it would act as both judge and party. By channeling its research through external, independent peer-reviewed venues, the institution ensures its work undergoes standard competitive validation, enhancing its global visibility and credibility.
The institution's Z-score of 3.660, identical to the country's score, places it in a standard crisis, indicating it is immersed in a generalized and critical risk dynamic. This extremely high value is a major red flag for the practice of 'salami slicing,' where a single coherent study is fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice severely distorts the available scientific evidence, overburdens the peer review system, and signals a troubling prioritization of publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
