| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.551 | -0.886 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.616 | -0.049 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.074 | -0.393 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.137 | -0.217 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.132 | -0.228 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.246 | -0.320 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.178 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.252 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.068 | -0.379 |
Daegu Catholic University demonstrates a commendable overall integrity profile (Overall Score: -0.580), rooted in strong ethical practices concerning authorship and publication channels. The institution shows exceptional performance in preventing multiple affiliations, retractions, and hyperprolific authorship, establishing a solid foundation of scientific responsibility. However, this strong core is contrasted by emerging vulnerabilities in two key areas: a moderate rate of redundant output and a notable dependency on external collaborations for scientific impact. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's key research strengths lie in Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology; Chemistry; and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics. To fully align with its mission of realizing a "true...human world through love and service," it is crucial to address these risks, as they can subtly prioritize metric performance over the generation of substantive, self-led knowledge. By leveraging its robust integrity culture to mitigate these specific vulnerabilities, the university can ensure its research excellence is not only impactful but also sustainable and fully aligned with its core values.
The institution's performance in this area (Z-score: -1.551) indicates a complete absence of risk signals, positioning it well below the already secure national average (Z-score: -0.886). This suggests a clear and unambiguous affiliation policy that effectively prevents strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit through "affiliation shopping." The data points to a culture that values organic, internal development and transparent collaboration over the artificial enhancement of metrics.
With a Z-score of -0.616, the institution shows a near-zero incidence of retracted publications, a result that is significantly more favorable than the national standard (Z-score: -0.049). This low-profile consistency demonstrates that its pre-publication quality control and supervision mechanisms are highly effective. The absence of systemic retractions reinforces a culture of integrity and methodological rigor, protecting the institution from the reputational damage that can arise from recurring malpractice or a lack of scientific diligence.
The institution exhibits a very low rate of self-citation (Z-score: -1.074), a figure that is substantially healthier than the national benchmark (Z-score: -0.393). This strong performance signals a deep integration into the global scientific community, where its research is validated by broad external scrutiny rather than within an internal "echo chamber." This practice effectively mitigates the risk of endogamous impact inflation, confirming that the university's academic influence is built on genuine international recognition.
The institution's rate of publication in discontinued journals (Z-score: -0.137) is slightly higher than the national average (Z-score: -0.217), although both figures remain within a low-risk threshold. This subtle difference suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring. A high proportion of output in such journals can be a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. While not currently alarming, this signal indicates a potential need to enhance information literacy among researchers to avoid channeling work through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, thereby preventing future reputational risks.
With a Z-score of -0.132, the institution shows a slightly higher incidence of hyper-authored publications compared to the national average of -0.228. Although the overall risk level is low, this small elevation points to a potential vulnerability. When this pattern appears outside "Big Science" contexts where extensive author lists are standard, it can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This signal serves as a reminder to ensure that authorship practices remain merit-based and avoid "honorary" attributions.
The institution presents a moderate risk in this area (Z-score: 0.246), a notable deviation from its national peers, who average a low-risk score of -0.320. This positive gap indicates that the institution's overall scientific impact is significantly dependent on collaborations where it does not hold a leadership role. This signals a potential sustainability risk, suggesting its scientific prestige may be more exogenous than structural. The data invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics stem from genuine internal capacity or from advantageous positioning in partnerships where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of hyperprolific authors (Z-score: -1.413), far below the already low-risk national average (Z-score: -0.178). This result strongly indicates a healthy balance between productivity and quality. The absence of extreme individual publication volumes suggests the institution is not exposed to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without meaningful participation, reinforcing a culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over sheer volume.
The institution's rate of publication in its own journals (Z-score: -0.268) is in total alignment with the national environment (Z-score: -0.252), which is characterized by maximum scientific security in this regard. This integrity synchrony demonstrates a firm commitment to external validation and global visibility. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the institution mitigates potential conflicts of interest and ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, reinforcing the credibility and competitiveness of its research output.
A moderate risk is detected in this indicator, with the institution's Z-score of 0.068 deviating significantly from the low-risk national average of -0.379. This suggests a greater sensitivity to publication strategies that may involve data fragmentation or "salami slicing." This practice, which divides a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, can distort the available scientific evidence and overburden the peer-review system. This area requires review to ensure that research outputs prioritize the generation of significant new knowledge over the maximization of publication volume.
