Kyung Hee University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Kyung Hee University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.176 indicating a performance that is well-aligned with best practices. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in its pre-publication quality controls and ethical dissemination strategies, reflected by very low risk levels in Retracted Output (-0.550), Redundant Output (-0.567), and Output in Institutional Journals (-0.208). These results underscore a commitment to rigorous, externally validated research. However, areas requiring strategic monitoring have been identified, specifically a moderate deviation from national norms in the Rate of Hyperprolific Authors (0.869) and the Rate of Multiple Affiliations (0.145). These strengths are the foundation for the university's outstanding performance in several key thematic areas, as evidenced by SCImago Institutions Rankings data, where it ranks among the top national institutions in Dentistry (3rd), Agricultural and Biological Sciences (4th), and Business, Management and Accounting (5th). While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, the identified risks in authorship and affiliation practices could challenge the universal academic goals of transparency and accountability. By proactively addressing these specific vulnerabilities, Kyung Hee University can further solidify its position as a national and global leader, ensuring its impressive research output is built upon a foundation of unimpeachable ethical standards.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of 0.145, a notable contrast to the national average of -0.886. This divergence constitutes a monitoring alert, as the university exhibits a risk level that is highly unusual for the national standard. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the significant gap between the institution and its national context suggests a need to review the underlying causes. This is to ensure that this pattern reflects genuine collaboration rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," a practice that does not appear to be prevalent elsewhere in the country.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.550, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of retracted publications, performing even better than the low-risk national average of -0.049. This finding indicates a low-profile consistency where the absence of risk signals aligns with, and even surpasses, the national standard. Such a result suggests that the university's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are not only effective but exemplary. It points to a culture of responsible supervision and methodological rigor that successfully minimizes the need for post-publication corrections, reflecting a systemic strength in its research integrity framework.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score for self-citation is -0.152, which, while indicating low risk, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.393. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability, suggesting the institution shows signals that warrant review before escalating. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of research lines. However, this minor elevation compared to national peers serves as an early warning against the potential for developing scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' Proactive monitoring is advisable to ensure the institution's academic influence continues to be validated by the global community rather than being disproportionately shaped by internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.204 is nearly identical to the national average of -0.217, demonstrating statistical normality. This alignment indicates that the risk level associated with publishing in discontinued journals is as expected for its context and size. The data suggests that the institution's researchers exercise a standard level of due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, effectively avoiding media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice mitigates reputational risks and aligns with the national trend of channeling scientific production through reliable and recognized venues.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

At -0.042, the institution's Z-score is higher than the national average of -0.228, signaling an incipient vulnerability. Although both scores fall within a low-risk range, the university shows a slightly greater tendency toward publications with extensive author lists compared to its national peers. This serves as a signal to ensure that this pattern is driven by legitimate, necessary massive collaboration, typical in 'Big Science,' and not by a drift toward 'honorary' or political authorship practices that can dilute individual accountability and transparency. A review of authorship guidelines in relevant departments may be a prudent step.

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

The institution's Z-score of -0.254, while in the low-risk category, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.320. This score indicates an incipient vulnerability, suggesting that the institution's scientific prestige may be marginally more dependent on external partners than is typical for its peers. While it is common for institutions to leverage collaborations for impact, this small gap serves as a reminder to foster internal capacity. It invites reflection on ensuring that excellence metrics result from structural, home-grown capabilities and intellectual leadership, thereby securing long-term scientific sustainability.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of 0.869 marks a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.178. This indicates that the university shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors associated with hyperprolific authors than its national peers. While high productivity can evidence leadership, extreme individual publication volumes challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This elevated indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation. It suggests a need to investigate these cases to ensure that institutional dynamics prioritize the integrity of the scientific record over pure metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.208, the institution is in close alignment with the national average of -0.252, both of which are in the very low-risk category. This demonstrates integrity synchrony, reflecting a total alignment with a national environment of maximum scientific security in this domain. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the institution successfully mitigates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production consistently undergoes independent external peer review, reinforcing its commitment to global visibility and competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.567 is exceptionally low, significantly better than the already low-risk national average of -0.379. This result signifies low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals surpasses the national standard. It strongly indicates that the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, known as 'salami slicing,' is not a concern. This reflects an institutional culture that values the publication of significant new knowledge over the pursuit of volume, thereby strengthening the scientific record and respecting the academic review system.