Andong National University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Andong National University demonstrates a generally robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall score of -0.363. The institution's primary strengths lie in its rigorous publication and authorship practices, with exceptionally low risk signals in retracted output, publication in discontinued journals, hyper-authorship, and hyperprolific authors. These positive indicators are, however, counterbalanced by two notable vulnerabilities: a medium-risk level in Institutional Self-Citation and a similar concern regarding Redundant Output (Salami Slicing), both of which deviate significantly from the national standard. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's key research strengths are concentrated in areas such as Earth and Planetary Sciences, Agricultural and Biological Sciences, and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology. The identified integrity risks, particularly those related to potential impact inflation and fragmented research, could undermine the perceived excellence and social value of these core thematic areas. To ensure its scientific contributions achieve their full potential and align with a mission of academic excellence, it is recommended that the university leverage its strong foundational integrity to develop targeted policies addressing self-citation and publication redundancy, thereby safeguarding the credibility of its strongest research outputs.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of -0.407, which, while low, marks a slight divergence from the national average of -0.886. This indicates the emergence of risk signals related to multiple affiliations that are not as prevalent in the rest of the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this deviation from the national baseline suggests a need for awareness. The data points to a pattern that, if it were to grow, could signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping,” warranting a light monitoring to ensure all affiliations reflect substantive collaboration.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.522, the institution demonstrates a near-total absence of risk signals for retracted publications, a performance that is even stronger than the low-risk national average of -0.049. This low-profile consistency suggests that the university's quality control and supervision mechanisms are highly effective. Retractions can sometimes result from the honest correction of errors, but an exceptionally low rate like this points toward a robust institutional culture of integrity and methodological rigor that successfully prevents systemic failures prior to publication, reinforcing the credibility of its scientific record.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score for self-citation is 0.882, a medium-risk value that represents a moderate deviation from the low-risk national benchmark of -0.393. This finding suggests the university is more sensitive than its national peers to practices that can lead to academic insularity. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting ongoing research lines, but this disproportionately high rate signals a potential 'echo chamber' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This trend warns of a risk of endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.334, indicating a very low risk and an absence of signals in this area, which aligns with and improves upon the low-risk national standard of -0.217. This strong performance underscores a commendable level of due diligence in the selection of dissemination channels. By effectively avoiding journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, the university not only protects its resources from 'predatory' practices but also safeguards its institutional reputation, demonstrating a clear commitment to high-quality, impactful research dissemination.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.862, the institution maintains a prudent profile that is significantly more rigorous than the national standard of -0.228, despite both being in a low-risk category. This indicates that the university effectively manages authorship practices to prevent inflation. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' this low score suggests the institution successfully distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and the risk of 'honorary' or political authorship. This diligence reinforces individual accountability and transparency in the attribution of scientific credit.

Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership

The institution's Z-score of -0.745 reflects a prudent and well-managed profile, showing more rigor than the national standard of -0.320. A low score in this indicator is positive, signifying that the impact of research led by the institution is closely aligned with the impact of its overall collaborative output. This suggests that the university's scientific prestige is not overly dependent on external partners but is rooted in strong, structural internal capacity. This balance demonstrates that its excellence metrics are a result of genuine intellectual leadership, not just strategic positioning in collaborations led by others.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution shows a Z-score of -0.866, a prudent profile that indicates significantly more rigorous oversight than the national standard of -0.178. This very low incidence of hyperprolific authors suggests a healthy balance between productivity and quality. While high output can reflect leadership, extreme volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's low score in this area mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, signaling a culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of quantitative metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution is in perfect integrity synchrony with the national average of -0.252. This total alignment reflects a shared environment of maximum scientific security, where publishing in institutional journals is not a common practice. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the university circumvents potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This commitment to independent, external peer review enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its research, demonstrating a focus on international standards over internal 'fast tracks' for publication.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of 1.010 places it at a medium-risk level, a moderate deviation that highlights a greater sensitivity to this risk factor compared to the low-risk national average of -0.379. This score alerts to the potential practice of dividing coherent studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, also known as 'salami slicing.' Such data fragmentation can distort the available scientific evidence and overburden the peer-review system. This indicator suggests an urgent need to review publication strategies to ensure that the focus remains on generating significant new knowledge rather than maximizing the volume of outputs.