| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.560 | -0.886 |
|
Retracted Output
|
7.020 | -0.049 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.938 | -0.393 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.333 | -0.217 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.265 | -0.228 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.711 | -0.320 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.070 | -0.178 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.252 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.643 | -0.379 |
Hannam University presents a strong scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of 1.819, indicating a solid foundation in responsible research practices. The institution demonstrates exceptional performance in key areas such as Rate of Multiple Affiliations, Institutional Self-Citation, Hyper-Authored Output, and Hyperprolific Authors, where risk signals are virtually non-existent and often below the national average. However, this robust core is contrasted by three significant vulnerabilities: a critical alert in the Rate of Retracted Output and medium-level risks in the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals and the Rate of Redundant Output. These weaknesses require immediate attention as they directly challenge the university's mission to provide "quality education and preparation for competent leaders." The presence of retracted or poorly placed research undermines the standard of quality and excellence expected of future leaders. The university's strong academic positioning, particularly in Social Sciences, Mathematics, and Chemistry according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, provides a platform of strength from which to address these integrity gaps. By leveraging its solid governance in most areas, Hannam University has the opportunity to develop targeted interventions to mitigate these specific risks, thereby fully aligning its operational practices with its stated mission of quality and leadership.
With an institutional Z-score of -1.560, significantly lower than the national average of -0.886, Hannam University demonstrates a complete absence of risk signals in this area. This result indicates that the institution's affiliation practices are exceptionally clean and transparent, even when compared to the already low-risk national context. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, disproportionately high rates can signal attempts to inflate institutional credit. The university's operational silence on this indicator confirms that its collaborative framework is robust and not susceptible to such strategic manipulation, reflecting a clear and unambiguous assignment of academic credit.
The institution's Z-score of 7.020 for retracted publications represents a severe discrepancy when compared to the low-risk national average of -0.049. This atypical level of activity is a critical alert that requires a deep integrity assessment. Retractions are complex events, but a rate this far above the norm suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be failing systemically. This is not merely a collection of isolated incidents but a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, pointing to possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that warrants immediate qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation.
Hannam University shows a very low Z-score of -0.938, which is consistent with and even improves upon the low national average of -0.393. This absence of risk signals indicates a healthy and externally-focused research ecosystem. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university's low rate demonstrates that it effectively avoids the "echo chambers" that can arise from excessive self-validation. This suggests that the institution's academic influence is genuinely recognized by the global community, rather than being inflated by endogamous or internal dynamics.
The institution exhibits a moderate deviation from the national standard, with a Z-score of 0.333 against a low-risk country average of -0.217. This indicates a greater sensitivity to risk factors related to publication venue selection. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence, suggesting that a significant portion of research is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. This exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and points to an urgent need to enhance information literacy among its researchers to prevent the misallocation of resources to 'predatory' or low-quality outlets.
With a Z-score of -1.265, the university maintains a very low-risk profile that aligns with the national standard (Z-score of -0.228). This lack of risk signals suggests that authorship practices at the institution are transparent and well-governed. In fields outside of "Big Science," extensive author lists can indicate inflation or a dilution of individual accountability. Hannam University's excellent result in this area confirms that its research output is characterized by clear and appropriate attribution, effectively distinguishing between necessary collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship practices.
The institution demonstrates a prudent and rigorous profile with a Z-score of -0.711, which is notably better than the national average of -0.320. This indicates a strong degree of scientific autonomy and sustainability. A wide positive gap in this indicator can signal that an institution's prestige is dependent on external partners rather than its own capabilities. Hannam University's result suggests the opposite: its scientific excellence is structural and stems from real internal capacity, as it successfully exercises intellectual leadership in its research endeavors, ensuring its impact is both genuine and self-sustained.
The university's Z-score of -1.070 is very low, consistent with the low-risk national environment (Z-score of -0.178). This absence of risk signals points to a healthy balance between research quantity and quality. While high productivity can be positive, extreme publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The institution's low score indicates it is not prone to dynamics such as coercive authorship or the prioritization of metrics over the integrity of the scientific record, fostering an environment where substantive contributions are valued.
Hannam University's Z-score of -0.268 is in almost perfect synchrony with the national average of -0.252, reflecting a total alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security. This demonstrates a strong commitment to using external and independent peer review channels. Over-reliance on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. The university's adherence to the national norm shows that it avoids using internal channels as potential 'fast tracks' for publication, ensuring its research is validated through standard competitive processes and enhancing its global visibility.
With a Z-score of 1.643, the institution shows a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.379, indicating a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. This value 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. This practice not only distorts the available scientific evidence but also overburdens the peer review system. It is advisable to review publication patterns to ensure that research output prioritizes significant new knowledge over sheer volume.
