| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.480 | -0.886 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.550 | -0.049 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.604 | -0.393 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.210 | -0.217 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.193 | -0.228 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.774 | -0.320 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.178 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.252 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.955 | -0.379 |
Dongduk Women's University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.526 indicating strong adherence to best practices. The institution demonstrates exceptional control over potential vulnerabilities, showing a near-complete absence of risk signals in areas such as the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, Retracted Output, Hyper-Authored Output, and Hyperprolific Authors. However, two areas warrant strategic attention: a medium-risk signal in the Gap between the impact of total output and that of institution-led output, and a similar alert for the Rate of Redundant Output. These specific challenges contrast with the university's notable research strengths, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings in key thematic areas like Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics. While the specific mission was not provided, these identified risks—suggesting a potential dependency on external partners for impact and a tendency towards data fragmentation—could undermine core academic values of excellence and intellectual leadership. Addressing these vulnerabilities proactively will not only mitigate risk but also solidify the institution's capacity to generate original, high-impact research, fully aligning its operational practices with its strategic ambitions.
The institution's Z-score of -1.480 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.886. This result indicates a complete operational silence regarding this risk, with the university demonstrating an even more conservative affiliation practice than the already low-risk national standard. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, the institution's data shows no signs of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” reflecting a clear and transparent policy on authorship and institutional representation.
With a Z-score of -0.550, the institution shows a near-total absence of risk signals, a performance that is well-aligned with the low-risk national standard (Z-score -0.049). This low-profile consistency suggests that the university's quality control and supervision mechanisms are effective. Retractions can sometimes signify responsible error correction, but the extremely low rate here indicates that robust pre-publication processes are successfully preventing systemic failures or recurring malpractice, thereby safeguarding the institution's integrity culture.
The university maintains a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.604, which is notably lower than the national average of -0.393. This suggests that the institution manages its citation practices with more rigor than the national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university's controlled rate indicates it successfully avoids the 'echo chambers' that can arise from excessive self-validation. This practice ensures its work is subject to sufficient external scrutiny, reinforcing the credibility of its academic influence beyond internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.210 is nearly identical to the national average of -0.217, demonstrating statistical normality in this area. This alignment indicates that the university's risk level for publishing in discontinued journals is as expected for its context. While any presence in such journals warrants attention, the current rate does not suggest a systemic failure in due diligence. It reflects a standard operational risk rather than a critical vulnerability, though continued monitoring of dissemination channels is always advisable to avoid reputational damage from predatory or low-quality outlets.
The institution's Z-score of -1.193 is exceptionally low, contrasting with the national average of -0.228. This low-profile consistency demonstrates a clear absence of risk signals related to authorship inflation, aligning with the national standard of low risk but performing significantly better. Outside of 'Big Science' contexts, high rates can indicate a dilution of accountability. The university's data, however, strongly suggests that its authorship practices are transparent and avoid 'honorary' or political attributions, reinforcing individual accountability in its research output.
A moderate deviation is observed in this indicator, with the institution's Z-score at 0.774 compared to the low-risk national average of -0.320. This suggests the university is more sensitive to this risk factor than its national peers. The wide positive gap indicates that while the institution's overall impact is significant, the impact of research where it holds intellectual leadership is comparatively lower. This signals a potential sustainability risk, suggesting that its scientific prestige may be overly dependent on external partners rather than being structurally generated from within. This invites a strategic reflection on how to build and showcase genuine internal capacity to ensure long-term academic sovereignty.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution shows a complete absence of risk signals in this area, performing significantly better than the national average of -0.178. This low-profile consistency indicates that the university's research environment does not foster the kind of extreme individual publication volumes that can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The data suggests a healthy balance between quantity and quality, with no evidence of practices like coercive authorship or authorship assignment without real participation, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is slightly below the national average of -0.252, indicating a total operational silence in this risk category. This performance, even more conservative than the national standard, shows a negligible reliance on in-house journals for dissemination. While such journals can be valuable for local communication, the university's approach avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This commitment to external, independent peer review enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its research.
The institution shows a moderate deviation from the national norm, with a Z-score of 0.955, which is significantly higher than the country's low-risk average of -0.379. This indicates a greater sensitivity to this particular risk factor compared to its peers. A high value here alerts to the potential practice of dividing coherent studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This pattern of massive bibliographic overlap between publications suggests a need to review publication strategies to ensure that research contributes significant new knowledge rather than simply fragmenting data, a practice which can distort scientific evidence and overburden the peer-review system.
