Dong-A University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Dong-A University demonstrates a robust profile of scientific integrity, with an overall risk score of -0.578 that indicates a very low exposure to questionable research practices. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of multiple affiliations, retracted output, institutional self-citation, and hyperprolific authorship, where it performs significantly better than the national average. These results reflect a solid governance framework and a culture committed to ethical standards. Minor areas for attention include a slight vulnerability in the rates of output in discontinued journals and redundant publications, which, while still low, are slightly above the national baseline. This strong integrity profile directly supports Dong-A University's mission to “provide students with knowledge for personal growth and professional skill enhancement... and contribute to the development of the society.” A commitment to ethical research ensures the knowledge imparted is reliable and of high quality, forming a solid foundation for student success and meaningful societal contributions. The institution's notable research strengths, particularly in Economics, Econometrics and Finance (ranking 6th nationally), Psychology (24th), and Agricultural and Biological Sciences (26th), are further enhanced by this foundation of trust. The university is well-positioned to leverage its strong integrity framework as a cornerstone of its academic and research excellence, and continued monitoring of minor vulnerabilities will ensure this foundation remains secure for sustainable growth.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of -1.247, which is notably lower than the national average of -0.886. This result signals a complete absence of risk indicators in this area, performing even better than the already low-risk national standard. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, the university’s exceptionally low rate demonstrates clear and transparent collaborative practices, effectively eliminating any suspicion of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping.” This reflects a well-defined and rigorously applied policy regarding institutional representation in scientific publications.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.484, the institution maintains a very low-risk profile, contrasting with the low-risk national average of -0.049. This demonstrates a consistent and effective approach to quality control that aligns with the secure national environment. The near-absence of retractions suggests that the university's pre-publication supervision and methodological rigor are robust, successfully preventing the systemic failures that can lead to recurring malpractice. This performance reinforces a strong institutional culture of integrity where responsible research conduct is the norm, not the exception.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of -1.054 is significantly below the national average of -0.393, placing it in the very low-risk category while the country is in the low-risk band. This excellent result shows the institution successfully avoids the scientific isolation characteristic of academic 'echo chambers.' A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university’s minimal rate indicates that its research is deeply integrated into the global scientific conversation, and its academic influence is validated by broad external scrutiny rather than being inflated by internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.118 is slightly higher than the national average of -0.217, although both fall within the low-risk category. This suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants review. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals can be a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. While the current level is not alarming, this minor deviation indicates that a small fraction of the university's output may be channeled through media that do not meet international quality standards, meriting proactive guidance for researchers to avoid potential reputational risks.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.513, the institution demonstrates a more prudent profile than the national average of -0.228, despite both being in the low-risk category. This indicates that the university manages its authorship processes with greater rigor than the national standard. The data suggests a healthy culture where author lists accurately reflect meaningful contributions, effectively mitigating the risk of author list inflation or 'honorary' authorship practices that can dilute individual accountability and transparency.

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

The institution's Z-score of -0.753 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.320, reflecting a prudent and well-managed profile. This low gap indicates a strong and healthy balance between the impact generated in collaboration and the impact of research led internally. It suggests that the university's scientific prestige is structural and sustainable, stemming from genuine internal capacity rather than being overly dependent on external partners for impact. This autonomy is a key indicator of a mature and self-sufficient research ecosystem.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution exhibits an exceptionally low-risk profile with a Z-score of -1.413, far below the national average of -0.178. This signals a healthy institutional environment where the balance between quantity and quality is maintained. The absence of hyperprolific authors, whose extreme publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution, indicates that the university is not exposed to risks such as coercive authorship or the prioritization of metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is almost identical to the national average of -0.252, demonstrating total alignment with a national environment of maximum scientific security in this regard. This synchrony indicates that the university, like its national peers, avoids excessive dependence on its own journals for publication. This practice mitigates potential conflicts of interest and ensures that its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, thereby enhancing its global visibility and competitive validation rather than relying on internal 'fast tracks'.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of -0.004, the institution's rate of redundant output is higher than the national average of -0.379, although both remain in the low-risk category. This score points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring. A high value in this indicator can alert to the practice of 'salami slicing,' where studies are fragmented to artificially inflate productivity. While not a systemic issue at the university, this signal suggests a need to reinforce the importance of publishing comprehensive studies that contribute significant new knowledge, rather than prioritizing publication volume.