Gyeongsang National University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Gyeongsang National University demonstrates a robust and healthy scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall score of -0.201. The institution exhibits significant strengths in managing research practices, with very low to low risk levels across eight of the nine indicators, particularly in areas such as the Rate of Hyper-Authored Output, the Impact of Led Research, and the Rate of Output in Institutional Journals. The primary area requiring strategic attention is a medium-risk signal in the Rate of Retracted Output. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's academic strengths are particularly notable in Veterinary, Social Sciences, Medicine, and Energy. To fully align with its mission "To create promising future and realize happiness of the world," it is crucial to address the integrity vulnerabilities signaled by retractions, as a promising future must be built upon a foundation of verifiable and trustworthy scientific knowledge. By reinforcing pre-publication quality controls, the university can safeguard its strong reputation and ensure its excellent research output contributes reliably to global well-being.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of -0.393, while the national average is -0.886. This slight divergence indicates that the university shows minor signals of this activity, which are largely absent in the rest of the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this small but distinct signal suggests that monitoring is warranted to ensure these affiliations consistently reflect substantive collaboration rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping."

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 0.136, the institution shows a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.049. This suggests a greater institutional sensitivity to risk factors that can lead to retractions compared to its national peers. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the average serves as a critical alert. It suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically, indicating a vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture that could stem from recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor. This finding calls for immediate qualitative verification by management to identify and address the root causes.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of -0.100, compared to the country's -0.393, points to an incipient vulnerability. Although the risk level is low, the university's rate is higher than the national standard, a signal that warrants review before it escalates. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of research lines; however, this tendency could, if unchecked, foster scientific 'echo chambers' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. Proactive monitoring is advisable to prevent the risk of endogamous impact inflation and ensure the institution's influence is driven by global community recognition.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.136 is slightly higher than the national average of -0.217, signaling an incipient vulnerability. While the overall risk is low, this subtle elevation suggests a need to reinforce due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. A consistent pattern of publishing in journals that are later discontinued can expose the institution to severe reputational risks. This signal serves as a reminder to enhance information literacy among researchers to avoid channeling valuable scientific production into media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, thereby preventing the waste of resources on low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.581, the institution demonstrates a prudent profile that is notably more rigorous than the national standard of -0.228. This indicates a well-managed approach to authorship attribution. The university's controlled rate suggests effective policies are in place to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration, common in 'Big Science,' and questionable practices like author list inflation or 'honorary' authorships. This rigor helps maintain individual accountability and transparency in research contributions.

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

The institution's Z-score of -0.701 reflects a prudent profile, indicating more rigorous management of its research leadership than the national standard (-0.320). The minimal gap between the impact of its total output and that of its internally-led research is a strong positive signal. It suggests that the university's scientific prestige is not overly dependent on external partners but is built upon genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership. This reflects a sustainable model where excellence metrics are a direct result of the institution's own structural capabilities.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution maintains a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.652, which is significantly lower than the national average of -0.178. This demonstrates a healthier balance between publication quantity and quality compared to its peers. By effectively managing extreme individual publication volumes, the university mitigates risks such as coercive authorship, 'salami slicing,' or the assignment of authorship without real participation. This focus ensures that productivity metrics do not compromise the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 shows integrity synchrony with the national average of -0.252, indicating total alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security. This near-zero rate of publication in its own journals is exemplary. It demonstrates a firm commitment to independent, external peer review, effectively avoiding potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures that scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels, enhancing its global visibility and credibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.282, while in the low-risk category, is higher than the country's average of -0.379, signaling an incipient vulnerability. This suggests that the practice of fragmenting a coherent study into minimal publishable units, or 'salami slicing,' may be slightly more prevalent here than in the national context. While citing previous work is essential, this indicator alerts to the need to ensure that new publications offer significant new knowledge rather than artificially inflating productivity, a practice which distorts scientific evidence and overburdens the review system.