| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.284 | -0.886 |
|
Retracted Output
|
3.592 | -0.049 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.107 | -0.393 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.129 | -0.217 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.068 | -0.228 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.573 | -0.320 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
1.287 | -0.178 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.252 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.781 | -0.379 |
Dong-Eui University presents a strong overall integrity profile, reflected in its score of 0.950, which indicates a solid foundation in research governance. The institution demonstrates exceptional control in key areas, with very low risk signals for multiple affiliations, redundant output, and publications in institutional journals. These strengths point to robust internal policies that foster transparency and originality. However, this positive overview is contrasted by critical vulnerabilities that require immediate attention: a significant rate of retracted output, and medium-risk levels for publications in discontinued journals and the presence of hyperprolific authors. Thematically, the university shows notable strength and national leadership in specific fields, ranking particularly well in South Korea for Agricultural and Biological Sciences (Top 20), and maintaining competitive positions in Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, Business, Management and Accounting, and Medicine according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. While a specific mission statement was not available for analysis, the identified risks, particularly concerning retractions and questionable publication venues, directly challenge the universal academic values of excellence and social responsibility. These practices undermine research credibility and can erode public trust. To secure its reputation and build upon its thematic strengths, it is recommended that the university leverage its areas of good governance to implement targeted interventions aimed at rectifying the identified weaknesses, thereby ensuring its scientific contributions are both impactful and unimpeachable.
The institution's Z-score of -1.284, compared to the national average of -0.886, indicates a state of total operational silence regarding this risk indicator. The university's rate is exceptionally low, even when measured against a national context that already shows minimal risk. This absence of signals suggests that its policies on collaboration and researcher affiliation are clear and rigorously applied. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, the university's performance effectively eliminates any concern about strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," reflecting a culture of transparent and well-defined partnerships.
With a Z-score of 3.592 against a national average of -0.049, the university exhibits a severe discrepancy that is highly atypical for its environment and requires an urgent, deep integrity assessment. Retractions are complex events, but a rate this far above the norm points to a systemic vulnerability rather than isolated incidents of honest error. This critical signal suggests that the institution's pre-publication quality control and supervision mechanisms may be failing. Such a high value is a significant threat to the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that demands immediate qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.107, while within a low-risk threshold, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.393, signaling an incipient vulnerability. This suggests that the university's research ecosystem warrants review before this trend escalates. While a degree of self-citation is natural for building on established research, this minor elevation could be an early indicator of a potential 'echo chamber' or scientific isolation. It is crucial to monitor this metric to ensure that the institution's academic influence is validated by the global community and not disproportionately inflated by internal citation dynamics.
The university's Z-score of 0.129 represents a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.217, indicating a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. This finding is a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. It suggests that a notable portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice 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 publication practices.
With a Z-score of -1.068, significantly lower than the national average of -0.228, the institution demonstrates a prudent profile in its authorship practices. This indicates that the university manages its processes with more rigor than the national standard. This performance suggests a clear understanding of when extensive author lists are legitimate, such as in "Big Science" collaborations, versus when they might signal author list inflation. By maintaining this control, the university effectively preserves individual accountability and transparency, reinforcing the integrity of its research contributions.
The institution's Z-score of -0.573, compared to the national average of -0.320, reflects a prudent profile and suggests that its research impact is well-grounded in its own capabilities. The gap between the impact of its overall output and that of the research it leads is smaller than the national norm, mitigating the risk of reputational dependency. This indicates that the university's scientific prestige is not overly reliant on external partners but is derived from its structural capacity for intellectual leadership, ensuring a more sustainable and authentic model of academic excellence.
The university's Z-score of 1.287 marks a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.178, showing a greater sensitivity to the presence of hyperprolific authors. This figure serves as an alert for potential imbalances between publication quantity and research quality. While high productivity can be a sign of leadership, extreme individual volumes often challenge the plausible limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator points to the need for a closer review of authorship practices to mitigate risks such as coercive authorship or credit being assigned without real participation, ensuring that institutional incentives prioritize the integrity of the scientific record over raw metrics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is almost identical to the national average of -0.252, demonstrating integrity synchrony and total alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security. This alignment shows that the university avoids over-reliance on its own journals, thus preventing potential conflicts of interest where it would act as both judge and party. By ensuring its research undergoes independent external peer review, the institution reinforces its commitment to global visibility and competitive validation, steering clear of academic endogamy or the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate productivity.
With a Z-score of -0.781, the institution demonstrates low-profile consistency, as the absence of risk signals is even more pronounced than the low-risk national standard (-0.379). This strong performance indicates a culture that values substantive contributions over artificially inflated publication counts. It suggests that researchers at the university are focused on presenting coherent studies rather than engaging in 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting data into minimal publishable units. This approach not only strengthens the reliability of the scientific evidence produced but also shows respect for the academic review system.
