| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.610 | -0.886 |
|
Retracted Output
|
1.394 | -0.049 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.601 | -0.393 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.199 | -0.217 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.162 | -0.228 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.718 | -0.320 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
1.015 | -0.178 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.252 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.101 | -0.379 |
Kyonggi University presents a moderate overall integrity profile with a score of 0.424, characterized by distinct areas of both commendable strength and significant vulnerability. The institution demonstrates exemplary control in areas such as the Rate of Hyper-Authored Output and the Rate of Output in Institutional Journals, indicating robust governance and alignment with best practices. However, this is contrasted by a critical alert in the Rate of Retracted Output, which is a severe outlier compared to the national standard. Additionally, several indicators, including the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, the Gap in Impact Leadership, the Rate of Hyperprolific Authors, and the Rate of Redundant Output, show a moderate deviation, suggesting a systemic sensitivity to certain risk factors. These integrity metrics coexist with notable academic strengths, as evidenced by SCImago Institutions Rankings data, where the university holds strong national positions in areas such as Earth and Planetary Sciences, Physics and Astronomy, Arts and Humanities, and Economics, Econometrics and Finance. While the institution's specific mission was not localized for this analysis, the identified risks, particularly the high rate of retractions, directly challenge universal academic values of excellence and social responsibility. To safeguard its reputation and build upon its thematic strengths, this report offers a strategic roadmap for Kyonggi University to address its vulnerabilities, reinforce its commitment to scientific integrity, and solidify its academic leadership.
The institution's Z-score of -0.610, while low, signals a slight divergence from the national baseline of -0.886, where such activity is nearly non-existent. This suggests the university is beginning to show early signals of a practice that is not yet visible in the rest of the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this minor uptick warrants observation to ensure these affiliations are driven by genuine collaboration rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping."
The university's Z-score of 1.394 represents a severe discrepancy when compared to the low national average of -0.049. This atypical and critically high rate of retractions requires a deep integrity assessment. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the global average alerts to a serious vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification and intervention by management.
With a Z-score of -0.601, the university displays a more prudent profile in managing institutional self-citation compared to the national standard (-0.393). This indicates that the institution manages its processes with more rigor than its national peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but by maintaining a lower rate, the university effectively avoids the risks of scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' This approach ensures that its academic influence is validated by broad external scrutiny from the global community rather than being potentially oversized by internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of 0.199 marks a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.217, indicating a greater sensitivity to publishing in discontinued journals than its peers. This constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. A high Z-score indicates that a significant portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The university exhibits an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.162 in hyper-authored output, demonstrating low-profile consistency with the national standard (-0.228), which is also low. The complete absence of risk signals in this area indicates robust internal governance over authorship practices. This strong performance suggests that, within the institution, author lists genuinely reflect meaningful contributions, effectively mitigating the risks of 'honorary' authorship and ensuring individual accountability and transparency are maintained.
A Z-score of 0.718 reveals a moderate deviation from the national average (-0.320), indicating that the university is more sensitive to this risk factor. This wide positive gap—where global impact is higher than the impact of research led by the institution—signals a potential sustainability risk. It suggests that a notable portion of the university's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, not structural. This invites reflection on whether excellence metrics result from real internal capacity or strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The university's Z-score of 1.015 points to a moderate deviation from the national average (-0.178), showing a greater sensitivity to this risk. Extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of human capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator serves as an alert to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship, 'salami slicing,' or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record and warrant a review of internal authorship policies.
The university's Z-score of -0.268 is in almost perfect alignment with the national average (-0.252), demonstrating integrity synchrony with an environment of maximum scientific security. This indicates that the institution avoids excessive dependence on its in-house journals, thereby mitigating potential conflicts of interest where it would act as both judge and party. By favoring external, independent peer-reviewed channels, the university ensures its scientific production receives standard competitive validation, which enhances its global visibility and credibility.
With a Z-score of 0.101, the university shows a moderate deviation from the national context (-0.379), where such practices are minimal. This indicates a greater sensitivity to the risk of redundant publications. This value alerts to the potential practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, also known as 'salami slicing.' This behavior distorts the available scientific evidence and overburdens the review system, suggesting a need to reinforce policies that prioritize the publication of significant new knowledge over sheer volume.
