| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.974 | -0.886 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.522 | -0.049 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.207 | -0.393 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.160 | -0.217 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.351 | -0.228 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.492 | -0.320 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.178 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.252 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.339 | -0.379 |
Jeonju University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.326 indicating a performance that is healthier than the global average. The institution demonstrates exceptional strength in maintaining very low-risk levels across a majority of indicators, particularly in areas such as Rate of Retracted Output, Rate of Hyper-Authored Output, and the Gap between total and led impact, where it significantly outperforms national benchmarks. These results reflect strong internal governance and a culture of accountability. However, this solid foundation is contrasted by two areas of moderate risk: the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals and the Rate of Redundant Output. Thematically, the university shows notable strength in Agricultural and Biological Sciences, where it ranks in the top 20 nationally according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, complemented by solid positioning in Psychology, Biochemistry, and Environmental Science. The identified risks, while not critical, could undermine the institutional mission to train "independent professionals" with "intelligence," as practices like publishing in low-quality journals or fragmenting research contradict the pursuit of genuine contribution. To fully align its operational practices with its stated values of excellence and community development, it is recommended that the university focus strategic efforts on enhancing information literacy for journal selection and promoting research that prioritizes substantive impact over sheer volume.
The institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of multiple affiliations, with a Z-score of -0.974 that is even more conservative than the already minimal national average of -0.886. This reflects a state of total operational silence regarding this risk, suggesting that the university's affiliation practices are clear, transparent, and well below any threshold for concern. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate result of collaboration, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. Jeonju University's profile, however, indicates a straightforward and accountable approach to authorship credit, free from the complexities that can arise from "affiliation shopping."
With a Z-score of -0.522, the university maintains a very low rate of retracted publications, a figure that compares favorably to the national Z-score of -0.049. This low-profile consistency suggests that the institution's internal quality control and supervision mechanisms are not only effective but also more rigorous than the national standard. Retractions are complex events, and while some reflect responsible error correction, a high rate suggests systemic failures. The university's excellent performance in this area points to a robust integrity culture that successfully prevents the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that could damage its scientific reputation.
The university's rate of institutional self-citation (Z-score: -0.207) indicates a low-risk profile but also reveals an incipient vulnerability, as it is slightly higher than the national average of -0.393. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of established research lines. However, this slight elevation warrants review, as disproportionately high rates can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. While not currently an alarm, this signal suggests a need to ensure the institution's academic influence continues to be validated by the broader global community rather than becoming overly reliant on internal dynamics.
A notable area of concern is the rate of publication in discontinued journals, where the university's Z-score of 1.160 marks a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.217. This indicates a greater sensitivity to this risk factor compared to its peers. A high proportion of output in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This score suggests that a portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need for improved information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution exhibits a very low rate of hyper-authored publications (Z-score: -1.351), a result that is significantly healthier than the national benchmark (Z-score: -0.228). This demonstrates an effective disconnection from any national trends toward authorship inflation. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' a high rate outside these contexts can dilute individual accountability. The university's exceptionally low score is a positive indicator of transparent authorship practices, effectively avoiding questionable dynamics such as 'honorary' or political authorship and reinforcing the principle of meaningful contribution.
The university shows a very low gap between its overall publication impact and the impact of research where it holds a leadership role (Z-score: -1.492), a figure that is substantially better than the national average (Z-score: -0.320). A wide positive gap can signal that an institution's prestige is dependent and exogenous, not structural. Jeonju University's excellent result, however, points to strong internal scientific leadership and sustainability, indicating that its excellence metrics are the product of genuine internal capacity rather than a strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the university displays a very low incidence of hyperprolific authors, performing significantly better than the national context (Z-score: -0.178). This suggests the institution fosters a healthy balance between productivity and quality. Extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of human capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution and can point to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation. The university's low score in this indicator reinforces a culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the simple inflation of metrics.
The university's rate of publication in its own institutional journals (Z-score: -0.268) is almost perfectly aligned with the national average (Z-score: -0.252), demonstrating integrity synchrony with an environment of maximum scientific security. While in-house journals are valuable for local dissemination, excessive dependence on them raises conflicts of interest. The university's very low and nationally-aligned score shows a clear commitment to independent external peer review, ensuring its research is validated through standard competitive channels and achieves global visibility.
The rate of redundant output presents a second area for improvement, with the university's Z-score of 0.339 indicating a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.379. This suggests the institution is more prone to this risk factor than its peers. Massive and recurring bibliographic overlap between publications often indicates data fragmentation or 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This value serves as an alert that some research practices may be prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge, a dynamic that can distort the available scientific evidence and overburden the review system.
