| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.789 | -0.886 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.043 | -0.049 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.968 | -0.393 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.333 | -0.217 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.174 | -0.228 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.596 | -0.320 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.996 | -0.178 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.252 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.304 | -0.379 |
Ewha Womans University demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an excellent overall risk score of -0.310. The institution exhibits significant strengths in areas that underscore a commitment to external validation and quality, with very low risk signals for Institutional Self-Citation, Hyperprolific Authors, Output in Institutional Journals, and Output in Discontinued Journals. These results indicate a strong culture of academic rigor. However, two areas warrant strategic attention: a medium-risk level for Hyper-Authored Output and a notable Gap between the impact of its total output and that of research under its own leadership. These vulnerabilities contrast with the university's prominent national standing in key thematic areas, including its Top 10 rankings in Dentistry and Psychology, and strong Top 15 positions in Arts and Humanities, Social Sciences, Business, and Veterinary studies, based on SCImago Institutions Rankings data. The identified risks, particularly the dependency on external collaborations for impact, could challenge the institutional mission to foster "creative women intellectuals who will pioneer the future" with "academic autonomy." To fully align its practices with its vision, it is recommended that the university leverage its solid integrity foundation to develop targeted strategies that enhance authorship transparency and bolster the impact of internally-led research, ensuring its pioneering spirit is matched by structural scientific leadership.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.789, while the national average is -0.886. This result indicates a slight divergence from the national trend, where the university displays low-level signals of this activity in a context that is almost entirely free of them. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, a rate that begins to separate from a very low national baseline warrants observation to ensure it continues to reflect genuine collaboration rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit.
The institution's Z-score of -0.043 is statistically identical to the national average of -0.049. This alignment demonstrates a level of risk that is normal and expected for its context and size. Retractions are complex events, and in this case, the low and standard rate suggests a process of responsible supervision and honest correction of unintentional errors rather than a systemic failure in quality control. The data does not point to any vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture regarding this indicator.
With a Z-score of -0.968, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of self-citation, performing significantly better than the national average of -0.393. This absence of risk signals is a clear strength, indicating that the university avoids the "echo chambers" that can arise from excessive self-validation. This strong reliance on external scrutiny suggests that the institution's academic influence is robustly validated by the global community, rather than being inflated by internal dynamics.
The institution shows an excellent Z-score of -0.333, well below the national average of -0.217. This performance highlights a consistent and effective due diligence process in selecting publication venues. By avoiding discontinued journals more successfully than its national peers, the university effectively mitigates reputational risks and demonstrates a commitment to channeling its scientific production through media that meet international ethical and quality standards, preventing the waste of resources on low-quality practices.
The institution's Z-score of 0.174 marks a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.228, placing it in a medium-risk category while the country remains at a low-risk level. This greater sensitivity to hyper-authorship warrants a review of internal practices. Outside of "Big Science" contexts where extensive author lists are normal, this pattern can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. This signal suggests a need to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and "honorary" authorship practices.
With a Z-score of 0.596, the institution shows a significant gap, deviating moderately from the national average of -0.320. This suggests that the university's scientific prestige is more dependent on external collaborations than is typical for its peers. A high value in this indicator signals a sustainability risk, as it implies that high-impact metrics may result more from strategic positioning in partnerships than from structural, internally-led research capacity. This invites reflection on strategies to strengthen intellectual leadership and ensure that excellence is endogenous.
The institution's Z-score of -0.996 is exceptionally low, indicating a near-total absence of this risk signal and far surpassing the national average of -0.178. This is an area of outstanding performance, suggesting a healthy institutional balance between quantity and quality in scientific output. This result points to a culture that effectively discourages practices such as coercive authorship or assigning credit without real participation, prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of metrics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is in perfect synchrony with the national average of -0.252. This total alignment reflects an environment of maximum scientific security regarding this indicator. By not relying on in-house journals, the university avoids potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This commitment to independent, external peer review enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its research.
The institution's Z-score of -0.304, while in the low-risk category, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.379. This positioning suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring before it escalates. A higher rate of bibliographic overlap, even if still low, can be an early indicator of "salami slicing," where studies are fragmented to inflate productivity. It is advisable to ensure that institutional incentives continue to prioritize the publication of significant new knowledge over sheer volume.
