Hongik University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Hongik University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.280 that indicates a performance well-aligned with best practices and superior to many national benchmarks. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths in maintaining low rates of multiple affiliations, hyper-authorship, and hyperprolific authors, signaling strong governance and a culture of responsible authorship. Key areas for strategic attention include the moderate risk levels observed in retracted output, institutional self-citation, and redundant publications. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's academic excellence is most prominent in Arts and Humanities (ranked 13th in South Korea), Psychology (17th), Economics, Econometrics and Finance (28th), and Business, Management and Accounting (30th). The identified integrity risks, though moderate, could subtly undermine the university's mission to foster "cooperative members of society" who contribute to development with "future-oriented dispositions." Practices that prioritize metrics over substance contradict the pursuit of a "common happiness" built on a foundation of trustworthy knowledge. By proactively addressing these vulnerabilities, Hongik University can ensure its operational practices fully embody its mission, reinforcing its role as a leader in both academic excellence and social responsibility.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The university demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of multiple affiliations, with a Z-score of -1.376 that is significantly below the already minimal national average of -0.886. This reflects a state of total operational silence for this indicator, suggesting a clear and unambiguous institutional affiliation policy. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, their near-absence here confirms that the university's collaborative practices are transparent and not being leveraged for strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit, reinforcing a culture of straightforward academic accounting.

Rate of Retracted Output

The institution's rate of retracted output (Z-score: 0.399) shows a moderate deviation from the national benchmark (Z-score: -0.049), indicating a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the national average serves as an alert that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be facing systemic challenges. This suggests 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 prevent further incidents.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

With a Z-score of 0.135, the rate of institutional self-citation moderately deviates from the national average of -0.393, suggesting the university is more prone to this risk than its peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural to reflect the continuity of research lines; however, this elevated rate could signal the formation of scientific 'echo chambers'. It warns of a potential for endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence might be disproportionately validated by internal dynamics rather than by broader recognition from the global scientific community, meriting a review of citation practices.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The university's rate of publication in discontinued journals (Z-score: -0.163) reveals an incipient vulnerability, as it is slightly higher than the national average (Z-score: -0.217). This signal, though at a low level, warrants review before it can escalate. A consistent presence in journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, even if minor, exposes the institution to reputational risks. It suggests a need to reinforce information literacy and due diligence processes among researchers to ensure that scientific output is not channeled into predatory or low-quality outlets.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution demonstrates a very low rate of hyper-authored output (Z-score: -1.170), a figure that is significantly below the already low national standard (Z-score: -0.228). This low-profile consistency reflects robust authorship policies that are even more stringent than the national norm. The absence of risk signals in this area confirms that the university's collaborative framework successfully distinguishes between necessary large-scale collaboration and practices like 'honorary' authorship, thereby upholding individual accountability and transparency in its research endeavors.

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

The university maintains a prudent profile regarding its research leadership, with a Z-score of -0.478 that indicates a smaller gap between its overall impact and the impact of its self-led research compared to the national average (Z-score: -0.320). This demonstrates that the institution manages its collaborative processes with more rigor than the national standard. A low gap is a positive sign of sustainability, suggesting that its scientific prestige is not overly dependent on external partners but is rooted in strong internal capacity, reflecting a healthy model where the institution exercises genuine intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

With a Z-score of -1.275, the rate of hyperprolific authors is exceptionally low, well below the national benchmark (Z-score: -0.178). This low-profile consistency with a low-risk national environment signals a healthy institutional balance between research quantity and quality. The absence of this risk indicator suggests that the university effectively discourages practices such as coercive or unmerited authorship, prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record and meaningful intellectual contribution over the simple inflation of publication metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The university's rate of publication in its own institutional journals (Z-score: -0.268) is in almost perfect alignment with the national average (Z-score: -0.252). This integrity synchrony reflects a shared national standard of maximum scientific security in this area. It indicates that the institution successfully avoids academic endogamy and does not rely on internal channels, which can present conflicts of interest, to bypass independent external peer review. This commitment ensures its research undergoes standard competitive validation and achieves global visibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's rate of redundant output shows a moderate deviation from the national context, with a Z-score of 0.014 compared to the country's average of -0.379. This suggests 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 coherent study may be fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This practice can distort the available scientific evidence and overburden the review system, highlighting a need to reinforce policies that prioritize the publication of significant new knowledge over sheer volume.