| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.375 | -0.886 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.578 | -0.049 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.981 | -0.393 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.122 | -0.217 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.221 | -0.228 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.212 | -0.320 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.179 | -0.178 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.118 | -0.252 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.272 | -0.379 |
Keimyung University demonstrates a robust and commendable profile of scientific integrity, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.528. This positions the institution favorably, with the vast majority of its integrity indicators falling within the 'very low' or 'low' risk categories, significantly outperforming national averages in key areas such as the rates of multiple affiliations, retracted output, and institutional self-citation. This strong foundation of ethical practice is a critical asset. The primary area for strategic attention is the notable gap between the impact of its total output and that of research where it holds intellectual leadership, suggesting a potential dependency on external collaborations for high-impact visibility. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's thematic strengths are particularly pronounced in Agricultural and Biological Sciences, where it ranks 11th nationally, complemented by strong national standings in Psychology and Arts and Humanities. This solid integrity profile strongly aligns with the university's mission to act with "ethical responsibility." However, to fully realize its ambition of being a "leading university" that accomplishes its mission of "opening light," it is crucial to address the identified impact dependency. By leveraging its excellent integrity culture to foster greater internal research leadership, Keimyung University can ensure its global prestige is both sustainable and a direct reflection of its own pioneering intellectual capacity.
The university exhibits an exceptionally low rate of multiple affiliations, with a Z-score of -1.375 that is significantly below the already low national average of -0.886. This result indicates a total operational silence regarding this risk, suggesting that affiliations are managed with exemplary clarity and transparency. The data confirms that the institution's collaborative practices are robust and do not present any signals associated with strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” reflecting a healthy and well-defined research ecosystem.
With a Z-score of -0.578, the institution shows a near-complete absence of retracted publications, a figure that compares favorably to the national Z-score of -0.049. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the university’s strong pre-publication quality controls align with, and even exceed, the generally low-risk standards of the country. This extremely low rate suggests that the institution's mechanisms for ensuring methodological rigor and research integrity are highly effective, preventing the systemic failures or recurring malpractice that a higher rate might indicate.
The institution maintains a very low rate of self-citation (Z-score: -0.981) compared to the national context (Z-score: -0.393). This performance indicates a healthy pattern of external validation and integration within the global scientific community. Such a low value confirms that the university avoids the risks of 'echo chambers' or endogamous impact inflation. Instead, its academic influence is clearly validated by the broader research community, demonstrating that its work achieves recognition based on external scrutiny rather than internal dynamics.
The university's rate of publication in discontinued journals registers a Z-score of -0.122, which, while in the low-risk category, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.217. This minor signal represents an incipient vulnerability that warrants review. A high proportion of output in such journals can expose an institution to severe reputational risks by suggesting a lack of due diligence in selecting publication venues. While the current level is not alarming, it points to a need to reinforce information literacy among researchers to ensure resources are not channeled into 'predatory' or low-quality media that fail to meet international standards.
The institution's Z-score for hyper-authored output is -0.221, a value almost identical to the national average of -0.228. This alignment indicates a state of statistical normality, where the university's authorship patterns are as expected for its context and size. The data suggests that the institution's collaborative practices are in line with national norms, and there are no signals of widespread author list inflation or the dilution of individual accountability that can occur when this indicator is unusually high outside of 'Big Science' disciplines.
The institution's Z-score for the gap between its total impact and the impact of its self-led research is 0.212, which represents a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.320. This suggests that while its peers in South Korea typically demonstrate strong impact from their own led research, the university shows a greater dependency on collaborative work for its high-impact output. A positive gap of this nature can signal a sustainability risk, where scientific prestige is more exogenous than structural. It invites a strategic reflection on whether the institution's measured excellence stems from its own internal capacity or from its positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership, a crucial factor for long-term academic sovereignty.
With a Z-score of -1.179, the university shows a virtually nonexistent rate of hyperprolific authors, performing significantly better than the already low-risk national average of -0.178. This demonstrates a clear institutional culture that prioritizes quality and meaningful intellectual contribution over sheer publication volume. The absence of this risk signal confirms that the university is not exposed to dynamics such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, reinforcing the integrity of its scientific record.
The university's rate of publication in its own journals shows a Z-score of -0.118. Although this is in the 'very low' risk category and indicates minimal activity, it is slightly higher than the national average of -0.252. This represents a residual noise, where the risk is negligible but the institution is among the first to show faint signals in an otherwise inert national environment. While in-house journals can be valuable, this minor signal serves as a reminder of the potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy that can arise if production in such journals becomes excessive, potentially bypassing independent external peer review.
The institution's rate of redundant output, or 'salami slicing,' registers a Z-score of -0.272. While this is a low-risk value, it is slightly elevated compared to the national average of -0.379, indicating an incipient vulnerability. This suggests that while the practice is not widespread, there are minor signals of data fragmentation to artificially inflate productivity. A high value in this indicator can distort scientific evidence and overburden the review system, so this slight deviation warrants proactive monitoring to ensure research contributions remain significant and coherent.
