| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.400 | -0.886 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.587 | -0.049 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.337 | -0.393 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.282 | -0.217 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.145 | -0.228 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.492 | -0.320 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.178 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.252 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -0.379 |
Sahmyook University demonstrates a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.636, which is significantly better than the global average. The institution's governance is characterized by exceptional strength across a majority of indicators, with particularly outstanding performance in mitigating risks associated with hyper-prolific authorship, leadership-driven impact, and multiple affiliations. This foundation of ethical practice strongly supports its research excellence, particularly in its highest-ranking thematic areas according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, such as Psychology (28th in South Korea) and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (43rd). However, a notable vulnerability exists in the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, which deviates from the national standard and requires strategic attention. This specific risk poses a direct challenge to the university's mission to "make a difference in the world... through love and truth," as publishing in low-quality venues can undermine the credibility and impact of its research. To fully align its operational practices with its aspirational values, we recommend a focused initiative on enhancing researcher literacy regarding the selection of high-quality, reputable publication channels, thereby solidifying its position as a beacon of academic excellence and integrity.
The institution's Z-score is -1.400, while the national average is -0.886. This result indicates a complete absence of risk signals, performing even better than the already secure national benchmark. This exceptional performance suggests that Sahmyook University's collaborative frameworks are transparent and well-defined. While multiple affiliations can sometimes be used to inflate institutional credit, the data here points to legitimate and clearly attributed partnerships, reflecting a culture of unambiguous accountability in its research collaborations.
The institution's Z-score is -0.587, compared to the national average of -0.049. Sahmyook University exhibits an outstandingly low rate of retractions, positioning it in a state of excellence that surpasses the country's already low-risk standard. This demonstrates that the institution's quality control and supervision mechanisms prior to publication are exceptionally effective. A rate significantly lower than the average is a strong positive signal, indicating a robust integrity culture and high methodological rigor that successfully prevents the types of errors or malpractice that could lead to retractions.
The institution's Z-score is -0.337, slightly higher than the national average of -0.393. Although the overall risk level remains low and consistent with national norms, this minor deviation suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants observation. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but a rate slightly above its peers could be an early indicator of an emerging 'echo chamber' where work is validated internally more than is typical. This presents an opportunity to proactively encourage broader external engagement to ensure the institution's academic influence is consistently recognized by the global community, rather than being perceived as reliant on internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score is 0.282, a significant contrast to the national average of -0.217. This moderate deviation from a low-risk national environment is the most critical alert in this report. It indicates that a portion of the university's scientific output is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need for improved information literacy and due diligence in selecting dissemination channels to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-integrity publications.
The institution's Z-score is -1.145, markedly lower than the national average of -0.228. This demonstrates exemplary governance of authorship practices, distinguishing the university's performance from the national trend. The near-absence of hyper-authored publications outside of 'Big Science' contexts indicates that the institution effectively prevents author list inflation. This fosters a culture of meaningful contribution and clear accountability, steering clear of 'honorary' or political authorship practices that can dilute individual responsibility.
The institution's Z-score is -1.492, an exceptionally strong result compared to the national average of -0.320. This score is a powerful indicator of scientific autonomy and maturity. It signifies that the institution's scientific prestige is built upon its own structural capacity and intellectual leadership, rather than being dependent on external partners. This demonstrates a sustainable research ecosystem where excellence is generated and led from within, a hallmark of a scientifically independent and influential institution.
The institution's Z-score is -1.413, which is significantly lower than the national average of -0.178. This exceptional result points to a healthy institutional culture that prioritizes quality over sheer quantity. The virtual absence of authors with extreme publication volumes suggests that Sahmyook University effectively mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation. This focus on meaningful intellectual contribution over inflated metrics reinforces the integrity of its scientific record.
The institution's Z-score is -0.268, showing perfect alignment with the national average of -0.252. This synchrony with a national environment of maximum scientific security is commendable. It demonstrates a strong institutional commitment to independent, external peer review, thereby avoiding potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. By favoring global validation channels over internal ones, the university ensures its research achieves maximum credibility and visibility, steering clear of 'fast tracks' that could bypass standard competitive review.
The institution's Z-score is -1.186, a result that is substantially better than the national average of -0.379. This indicates exceptional control over publication practices and a culture that discourages data fragmentation. The very low incidence of redundant output suggests that researchers are focused on producing coherent, significant studies rather than artificially inflating their publication count through 'salami slicing.' This commitment to presenting complete and meaningful knowledge upholds the integrity of the scientific evidence base and respects the academic review system.
