| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.760 | -0.886 |
|
Retracted Output
|
2.136 | -0.049 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.140 | -0.393 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.081 | -0.217 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.506 | -0.228 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.472 | -0.320 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.075 | -0.178 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.252 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.463 | -0.379 |
Jeju National University presents a complex scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of 0.447 that reflects a combination of exceptional governance in some areas and critical vulnerabilities in others. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining structural independence and research quality, evidenced by very low-risk indicators for the impact gap of its own leadership (Ni_difference), publication in institutional journals, and redundant output. These results suggest robust internal mechanisms that promote genuine, self-led impact. However, this solid foundation is contrasted by a significant-risk alert in the Rate of Retracted Output, alongside medium-risk signals in Institutional Self-Citation, Output in Discontinued Journals, and Hyperprolific Authors. These weaknesses point to potential systemic issues in pre-publication quality control and strategic dissemination. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university holds strong national positions in key thematic areas, including Veterinary (12th), Business, Management and Accounting (17th), and Computer Science (22nd). While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, the identified risks, particularly the high rate of retractions, directly challenge the universal academic principles of excellence and social responsibility. A failure to address these integrity vulnerabilities could undermine the credibility of its research and tarnish the reputation earned in its areas of strength. Therefore, it is recommended that the university leverage this report as a strategic tool, prioritizing an in-depth audit of its quality assurance processes to fortify its scientific enterprise and ensure its contributions are both impactful and unimpeachable.
The institution's Z-score of -0.760 is within a low-risk range, but it represents a slight divergence from the national Z-score of -0.886, which is considered very low. This indicates that while the country as a whole shows virtually no signs of unusual activity in this area, the university exhibits a minimal but detectable signal. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this slight deviation from a very secure national baseline suggests that the institution should remain vigilant. It serves as an early, low-level indicator to ensure that all affiliations are transparent and reflect genuine collaboration rather than early signs of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit.
A severe discrepancy exists between the institution's Z-score of 2.136 (significant risk) and the country's Z-score of -0.049 (low risk). This atypical level of risk activity requires a deep integrity assessment. Retractions are complex events, but a rate this far above the national and global average suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This is not about isolated, honest corrections; rather, it alerts to a profound vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. The data points towards possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that demands immediate qualitative verification by management to understand the root causes and protect the university's scientific reputation.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.140, corresponding to a medium risk level, which marks a moderate deviation from the national Z-score of -0.393 (low risk). This suggests that the university is more sensitive to risk factors associated with self-citation than its national peers. While a certain level of self-citation reflects the continuity of research lines, this elevated rate could signal the formation of concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' It warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence might be oversized by internal dynamics rather than validated by sufficient external scrutiny from the global scientific community.
With a Z-score of 0.081, the institution is at a medium risk level, showing a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.217. This pattern indicates a greater institutional sensitivity to this risk compared to its peers. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This score suggests that a portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. This exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and points to an urgent need for enhanced information literacy among its researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution's Z-score of -0.506 is well within the low-risk category and is notably more favorable than the national average of -0.228. This prudent profile suggests that the university manages its authorship processes with more rigor than the national standard. This demonstrates a clear capacity to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration, typical in 'Big Science,' and practices of author list inflation. By maintaining a low rate, the institution effectively promotes individual accountability and transparency in authorship, reinforcing the integrity of its collaborative research.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.472, a very low-risk value that is significantly stronger than the country's low-risk score of -0.320. This demonstrates exceptional low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals surpasses even the secure national standard. A low score in this indicator is a powerful sign of scientific maturity and sustainability. It indicates that the university's scientific prestige is not dependent on external partners but is structurally generated by research where its own academics exercise intellectual leadership. This reflects a robust internal capacity for producing high-impact, independent science.
The institution's Z-score of 0.075 places it at a medium risk level, a moderate deviation from the low-risk national context indicated by a Z-score of -0.178. This suggests the university is more exposed to this particular risk factor than its peers. Extreme individual publication volumes challenge the limits of human capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator serves as an alert to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or the assignment of authorship without real participation. These are dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record and warrant a review of authorship policies.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution is in a state of integrity synchrony with the national environment, which has a nearly identical Z-score of -0.252. Both are at a very low-risk level, signaling total alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security. This excellent result shows that the university avoids the risks of academic endogamy and potential conflicts of interest. It demonstrates a commitment to validating its research through independent external peer review rather than relying on internal channels, thereby ensuring its scientific production competes on the global stage and is not artificially inflated.
The institution's Z-score of -0.463 is in the very low-risk category, a stronger performance than the country's low-risk score of -0.379. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with and improves upon the national standard. This score indicates that the university effectively discourages the practice of dividing coherent studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. By prioritizing the publication of significant new knowledge over volume, the institution upholds the integrity of the scientific evidence base and avoids overburdening the peer-review system.
