| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.243 | -0.886 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.616 | -0.049 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.302 | -0.393 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.238 | -0.217 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.900 | -0.228 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.216 | -0.320 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.178 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.252 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.458 | -0.379 |
Hanbat National University demonstrates a commendable overall integrity profile, marked by significant strengths in operational transparency and author-level ethics. The institution exhibits exceptionally low risk in areas such as the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, Retracted Output, Hyperprolific Authors, and Output in Institutional Journals, indicating robust internal governance and a culture that prioritizes quality control. However, this strong foundation is contrasted by medium-risk signals in four key areas: Institutional Self-Citation, Output in Discontinued Journals, a dependency on external collaboration for impact, and Redundant Output. These vulnerabilities suggest a potential misalignment with the university's mission to “Lead the changes of the world by setting the basics accurately.” Practices that could lead to academic endogamy, poor dissemination choices, or artificial productivity inflation directly challenge the principle of setting accurate basics. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's thematic strengths are particularly notable in Environmental Science, Social Sciences, Energy, and Earth and Planetary Sciences. To fully leverage this academic excellence and align its operational reality with its aspirational mission, it is recommended that the institution focuses strategic attention on mitigating the identified medium-risk areas, thereby ensuring its leadership is built upon a foundation of unimpeachable scientific integrity.
The institution presents a Z-score of -1.243, which is significantly lower than the national average of -0.886. This result indicates 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. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, disproportionately high rates can signal attempts to inflate institutional credit. Hanbat National University’s profile, however, shows a complete absence of any such signals, reflecting clear and transparent affiliation practices.
With a Z-score of -0.616 against a national average of -0.049, the institution demonstrates a very low incidence of retracted publications. This performance showcases a consistent and effective approach to quality control that surpasses the national standard. Retractions can be complex, sometimes resulting from honest corrections, but a high rate suggests systemic failures in pre-publication review. The university's extremely low score is a strong positive indicator of a mature integrity culture, where methodological rigor and responsible supervision effectively prevent the types of errors or malpractice that lead to retractions.
The institution's Z-score of 0.302 marks a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.393. This discrepancy suggests the university has a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers. While some self-citation is natural to show research continuity, the observed rate is high enough to signal a potential 'echo chamber' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This pattern warns of a risk of endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's perceived academic influence might be amplified by internal dynamics rather than by broader recognition from the global scientific community, warranting a review of citation practices.
The university shows a Z-score of 0.238, which is notably higher than the national average of -0.217. This moderate deviation indicates that the institution is more exposed to this risk than its peers. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied when selecting dissemination channels. This score suggests that a portion of the university's research is being channeled through media that may not meet international quality standards, exposing it to reputational risks and indicating a need to reinforce information literacy to avoid predatory or low-quality publishing practices.
With a Z-score of -0.900, the institution maintains a more prudent profile than the national standard, which has a Z-score of -0.228. Both scores are low, but the university's result is markedly better, indicating that its processes are managed with greater rigor. This suggests a well-calibrated approach to authorship, effectively distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration in "Big Science" and the risk of author list inflation. The data reflects a healthy practice of assigning authorship, which reinforces individual accountability and transparency in research contributions.
The institution's Z-score of 0.216 presents a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.320, indicating a greater sensitivity to this risk. The positive gap suggests that the university's overall scientific prestige is more dependent on external collaborations where it does not hold intellectual leadership. This signals a potential sustainability risk, as its high-impact metrics may be more a result of strategic positioning in partnerships than of its own structural research capacity. This finding invites a strategic reflection on how to foster and elevate the impact of research led directly by the institution's own scholars.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, especially when compared to the national average of -0.178. This demonstrates a consistent, low-profile approach that aligns with the highest standards of scientific integrity. The near-total absence of hyperprolific authors—individuals with publication volumes challenging the limits of meaningful contribution—is a powerful positive signal. It indicates a healthy institutional balance between quantity and quality, and an environment free from the pressures that can lead to coercive authorship or other practices that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution is in close alignment with the national average of -0.252. This integrity synchrony reflects a shared commitment to best practices within the country. By not relying on its own journals for dissemination, the university avoids the conflicts of interest inherent in being both judge and party. This practice demonstrates a commitment to independent, external peer review, ensuring its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels and maximizing its potential for global visibility and impact.
The institution's Z-score of 0.458 represents a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.379, indicating a higher exposure to this risk factor. The data suggests a greater-than-average tendency toward massive bibliographic overlap between publications. This pattern serves as an alert for the potential practice of 'salami slicing,' where a single coherent study may be fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. Such a practice not only overburdens the peer review system but also distorts the scientific evidence base, prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
