Hoseo University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Hoseo University presents a complex integrity profile, with an overall risk score of 2.134 indicating a low-to-moderate level of vulnerability. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths in maintaining low rates of multiple affiliations, ensuring a minimal gap between its overall impact and the impact of its led research, and avoiding endogamy in institutional journals. However, these strengths are offset by significant challenges, most critically an alarming rate of retracted publications, alongside medium-risk signals in institutional self-citation, output in discontinued journals, and redundant publications. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas include Agricultural and Biological Sciences (ranked 21st in South Korea), Mathematics (70th), and Chemistry (74th). The identified risks, particularly concerning retractions and questionable publication channels, directly challenge the university's mission to "strive for excellence" and produce "meaningful and impactful" work. These practices undermine the credibility and service-oriented values central to its identity. To bridge this gap, it is recommended that Hoseo University leverage its robust governance in low-risk areas to implement targeted reforms in pre-publication quality control and journal selection strategies, thereby realigning its operational practices with its foundational mission of integrity and excellence.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The university demonstrates an exemplary profile regarding multiple affiliations, with a Z-score of -1.405, which is even lower than the already low national average of -0.886. This complete absence of risk signals, even when compared to a secure national environment, suggests exceptionally robust and transparent affiliation policies. Disproportionately high rates in this indicator can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” Hoseo University's data, however, reflects total operational silence on this front, aligning with best practices and reinforcing a culture of clear and honest academic attribution.

Rate of Retracted Output

The institution's rate of retracted output (Z-score: 7.565) presents a significant and atypical risk profile when contrasted with the low-risk national context (Z-score: -0.049). This severe discrepancy suggests that the issue is not systemic to the country but is a localized anomaly requiring an urgent and deep integrity assessment. While some retractions result from honest error correction, a Z-score of this magnitude suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This rate alerts to a critical vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

With a Z-score of 0.516, the university shows a moderate deviation from the national standard, which sits in the low-risk category (Z-score: -0.393). This indicates a greater sensitivity to risk factors related to self-citation than its national peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but disproportionately high rates can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' This elevated value warns of a potential risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than validated by sufficient external scrutiny from the global community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The university's rate of publication in discontinued journals (Z-score: 0.954) shows a moderate deviation from the national benchmark (Z-score: -0.217), indicating a greater institutional susceptibility to this risk than its peers. A high proportion of output in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score indicates that a portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting a need to enhance information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

In the context of hyper-authored publications, the university maintains a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.979, which is notably more rigorous than the national standard (Z-score: -0.228). This demonstrates effective management of authorship practices compared to its peers. When the pattern of extensive author lists appears outside of "Big Science" contexts, it can indicate author list inflation, diluting individual accountability. Hoseo University's low score serves as a positive signal, suggesting a clear distinction between necessary collaboration and potentially problematic 'honorary' authorship practices.

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

The institution exhibits a very low-risk profile in its impact dependency, with a Z-score of -1.875, which aligns well with the low-risk national standard (Z-score: -0.320). This low-profile consistency demonstrates that the university is not exposed to the risks associated with impact that is heavily reliant on external partners. A wide positive gap in this indicator can signal a sustainability risk where prestige is dependent and exogenous. Hoseo University's excellent score, however, suggests that its scientific prestige is built upon strong internal capacity and intellectual leadership, reflecting a sustainable and structurally sound research ecosystem.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The university manages the risk of hyperprolific authorship with more rigor than the national standard, showing a Z-score of -0.694 compared to the country's -0.178. This prudent profile suggests that institutional controls or culture effectively discourage practices that prioritize quantity over quality. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to risks such as coercive authorship or 'salami slicing.' The university's lower-than-average score indicates a healthy balance, mitigating the risk of authorship being assigned without real participation and upholding the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the university is in complete alignment with the national average (Z-score: -0.252), both of which are in a state of maximum scientific security. This integrity synchrony indicates that the institution's practices regarding its in-house journals mirror the safe, low-risk environment of the country. Excessive dependence on institutional journals can raise conflicts of interest and risks of academic endogamy by bypassing independent peer review. Hoseo University's score demonstrates that it avoids this pitfall, ensuring its internal channels are not used to inflate publication counts without standard competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

The university's rate of redundant output, or 'salami slicing,' shows a moderate deviation from the national norm, with a Z-score of 0.558 against the country's low-risk score of -0.379. This suggests the institution is more sensitive to this particular risk factor than its peers. Massive and recurring bibliographic overlap between publications often indicates data fragmentation designed to artificially inflate productivity. This elevated value serves as an alert to the potential practice of dividing coherent studies into minimal publishable units, a dynamic that distorts scientific evidence and prioritizes volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.