| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.335 | -0.886 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.522 | -0.049 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.306 | -0.393 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
2.148 | -0.217 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.359 | -0.228 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.773 | -0.320 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.178 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.252 |
|
Redundant Output
|
3.170 | -0.379 |
Dongseo University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.092 that indicates a performance well-aligned with best practices. The institution demonstrates exceptional strength across a majority of indicators, particularly in maintaining low rates of multiple affiliations, retractions, and institutional self-citation, which points to a culture of transparency and external validation. However, this solid foundation is contrasted by two significant vulnerabilities: a medium-risk level in publishing in discontinued journals and a critical, significant-risk level for redundant output (salami slicing). Thematically, the institution shows notable strengths in areas such as Computer Science, Engineering, and Mathematics, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. While the institution's specific mission statement was not localized for this analysis, the identified risks in publication strategy directly challenge universal academic values of excellence and social responsibility. Practices like data fragmentation and use of substandard journals can undermine the credibility and long-term impact of research, regardless of strategic focus. By strategically addressing these two specific areas of concern, Dongseo University has a clear opportunity to transform its already strong integrity framework into a model of exemplary research governance.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.335, significantly lower than the national average of -0.886. This result signals a state of total operational silence regarding this risk indicator. The university's rate of multiple affiliations is exceptionally low, even when compared to a national context that already shows minimal signs of this activity. This demonstrates a clear and unambiguous affiliation policy, effectively eliminating any suggestion of strategic "affiliation shopping" or attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit through ambiguous co-authorships.
With a Z-score of -0.522 against a national average of -0.049, the institution demonstrates a consistent and low-risk profile. The near-total absence of risk signals at the institutional level is even more pronounced than the low-risk standard observed nationally, suggesting that internal quality control mechanisms are highly effective. Retractions can sometimes signify responsible error correction, but a rate this low indicates that the university's pre-publication supervision and methodological rigor are robust, systemically preventing the kinds of errors or malpractice that typically lead to later withdrawals of work.
The institution's Z-score of -1.306 is substantially below the national average of -0.393. This reflects a commendable low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk is more marked than in the national context. A certain level of self-citation is normal, but the university's very low rate indicates it is not operating in a scientific "echo chamber." This suggests that the institution's academic influence is genuinely validated by the global community rather than being inflated by internal dynamics, demonstrating strong integration with and recognition from external peers.
The institution presents a Z-score of 2.148, a notable contrast to the national average of -0.217. This moderate deviation indicates that the university has a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This score suggests that a portion of the university's research is being placed in venues that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to reputational risks and signaling an urgent need to enhance information literacy among its researchers to avoid predatory or low-quality practices.
The institution's Z-score of -1.359 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.228. This demonstrates a consistent and very low-risk profile, with the university showing even fewer signals of this risk than the already low national standard. While extensive author lists are legitimate in "Big Science," their absence here suggests that the university's authorship practices are well-governed and transparent. This effectively mitigates the risk of author list inflation and ensures that credit is assigned appropriately, reinforcing individual accountability.
With a Z-score of -1.773 compared to the national average of -0.320, the institution shows an exceptionally low-risk profile. This result, far below the national benchmark, indicates that the university's scientific prestige is not dependent on external partners but is structurally generated from within. A wide positive gap can signal that an institution's impact is borrowed rather than owned; conversely, this very low score suggests that Dongseo University exercises strong intellectual leadership in its collaborations and that its high-impact work is a direct result of its own internal capacity, ensuring a sustainable and authentic research ecosystem.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is markedly below the national average of -0.178. This reflects a very low-risk environment where the institutional culture appears to prioritize substance over sheer volume. The near absence of hyperprolific authors—individuals with publication volumes challenging the limits of meaningful contribution—suggests a healthy balance between quantity and quality. This mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, reinforcing the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is almost identical to the national average of -0.252. This demonstrates a perfect integrity synchrony, indicating total alignment with a national environment of maximum scientific security in this regard. By not relying on in-house journals, the university avoids the inherent conflict of interest where an institution acts as both judge and party. This practice ensures its scientific production consistently undergoes independent external peer review, maximizing global visibility and preventing the use of internal channels as "fast tracks" to inflate publication counts without competitive validation.
The institution's Z-score is 3.170, a figure that represents a severe discrepancy when compared to the low-risk national average of -0.379. This risk activity is highly atypical for the national context and requires a deep integrity assessment. Such a high value is a strong alert for the practice of "salami slicing," where a coherent study is fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice not only distorts the available scientific evidence but also overburdens the peer review system. An urgent review of publication patterns is necessary to ensure that the focus is on generating significant new knowledge rather than maximizing output volume.
