| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.543 | -0.886 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.474 | -0.049 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.584 | -0.393 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.148 | -0.217 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.168 | -0.228 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.196 | -0.320 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.178 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.252 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.580 | -0.379 |
Daejeon University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, marked by an overall risk score of -0.127 that indicates a performance well-aligned with global standards. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining low-risk practices across a majority of indicators, particularly in areas concerning authorship transparency, scientific autonomy, and publication ethics. These strengths are foundational to its research culture. However, this solid profile is contrasted by two specific vulnerabilities: a moderate rate of retracted output and a notable incidence of publications in discontinued journals. These areas require strategic attention as they could undermine the institution's mission to become a "prestigious private academic institution" grounded in the "pursuit of essential values." The university's strong thematic performance, as evidenced by SCImago Institutions Rankings data in key areas such as Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Medicine, and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, provides a powerful platform for growth. By addressing the identified integrity risks, Daejeon University can ensure its operational practices fully support its academic excellence and stated mission, reinforcing its reputation and commitment to responsible research on a global scale.
With an institutional Z-score of -1.543, significantly lower than the national average of -0.886, the university demonstrates a complete absence of risk signals related to multiple affiliations. This state of total operational silence, even when compared to an already low-risk national environment, points to exceptionally clear and transparent institutional crediting practices. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, disproportionately high rates can signal attempts to inflate institutional credit. The university's extremely low score confirms that its collaborative framework is managed with exemplary integrity, avoiding any ambiguity in research attribution.
The university's Z-score of 0.474 for retracted output marks a moderate deviation from the national benchmark of -0.049, suggesting a greater institutional sensitivity to factors leading to publication withdrawal. Retractions are complex events, and while some signify responsible supervision through the correction of honest errors, a rate notably higher than the national average warrants a closer look. This Z-score suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be facing challenges, potentially indicating a systemic vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to distinguish between honest error correction and recurring methodological issues.
Daejeon University maintains a prudent profile in institutional self-citation, with a Z-score of -0.584 that indicates more rigorous control than the national standard of -0.393. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but high rates can signal scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' The university's low score is a positive sign, suggesting its academic influence is validated by the broader scientific community rather than being inflated by internal dynamics. This demonstrates a healthy integration into global research conversations and a low risk of endogamous impact inflation.
The institution's Z-score of 1.148 for publications in discontinued journals represents a moderate deviation and a significant point of concern, especially when contrasted with the low-risk national average of -0.217. This disparity indicates that the university is more sensitive than its peers to the risk of publishing in questionable venues. A high proportion of output in such journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This score indicates that a portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need for enhanced information literacy to avoid predatory practices.
The university's Z-score of -1.168 for hyper-authored output is exceptionally low, aligning perfectly with the low-risk national standard of -0.228. This absence of risk signals reflects a culture of accountability and transparency in authorship. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' their appearance elsewhere can indicate author list inflation. The university's low-profile consistency in this area confirms that its collaborative research is not susceptible to practices like 'honorary' authorship, thereby reinforcing the principle of meaningful contribution for every credited author.
With a Z-score of -1.196, the university demonstrates a negligible gap between its overall publication impact and the impact of research led by its own authors, a figure consistent with the low-risk national environment (Z-score -0.320). A wide gap can signal that an institution's prestige is dependent on external partners rather than its own capabilities. Daejeon University's excellent score indicates strong scientific autonomy and structural capacity, suggesting its high-impact research is a direct result of its internal intellectual leadership, which is a key marker of a sustainable and self-reliant research ecosystem.
The institution shows a near-total absence of hyperprolific authors, with a Z-score of -1.413 against a national average of -0.178. This low-profile consistency with the national standard is a strong indicator of a healthy balance between research quantity and quality. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may signal issues like coercive authorship. The university's very low score effectively rules out these risks, suggesting that its research environment prioritizes scientific integrity and substantive work over the pursuit of sheer volume.
The university's Z-score of -0.268 for publications in its own journals demonstrates integrity synchrony, as it is in total alignment with the secure national environment (Z-score -0.252). While in-house journals can be valuable, excessive dependence on them raises conflict-of-interest concerns. The university's minimal reliance on such channels confirms its commitment to independent, external peer review. This practice enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, ensuring that its scientific output is validated through standard competitive processes rather than internal 'fast tracks'.
With a Z-score of -0.580, the university exhibits a very low rate of redundant output, a finding consistent with the low-risk national context (Z-score -0.379). This absence of risk signals indicates a commendable focus on publishing complete and coherent studies. High rates of bibliographic overlap often point to 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a study into minimal units to inflate productivity. The university's low score demonstrates a commitment to generating significant new knowledge over artificially boosting publication counts, thereby contributing responsibly to the scientific record.
