| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.409 | -0.886 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.569 | -0.049 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.726 | -0.393 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.164 | -0.217 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.330 | -0.228 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.560 | -0.320 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.178 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.252 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.446 | -0.379 |
Seoul Women's University demonstrates an outstandingly low-risk profile in scientific integrity, with an overall score of -0.716 that reflects robust internal governance and a commitment to high-quality research practices. The institution's primary strengths lie in its near-total absence of risk signals related to multiple affiliations, retracted output, hyper-authored publications, and hyperprolific authors, consistently outperforming national averages. Minor areas for continued monitoring, such as output in discontinued journals, are well within low-risk parameters and do not detract from the overall excellent performance. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas include Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, and Chemistry. While the institution's specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, this strong integrity profile provides a solid foundation for any strategic vision centered on academic excellence and social responsibility. The university's verifiable commitment to ethical research practices enhances the credibility and impact of its key scientific domains. We recommend that Seoul Women's University leverage this exceptional integrity profile as a strategic asset to attract talent, secure funding, and build international partnerships, reinforcing its reputation as a center of reliable and high-quality scientific inquiry.
The institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of multiple affiliations, with a Z-score of -1.409, which is significantly below the already low national average of -0.886. This result indicates a state of total operational silence regarding this risk indicator, suggesting that the institution's affiliation practices are clear and well-managed, even more so than the national standard. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The university's very low score in this area confirms a robust and transparent approach to academic collaboration, free from signals of “affiliation shopping” and reinforcing the integrity of its institutional credit.
With a Z-score of -0.569, the institution shows a near-absence of retracted publications, a positive signal that contrasts with the low-risk, but more active, national landscape (Z-score of -0.049). This demonstrates a commendable low-profile consistency, where the institution's strong internal quality controls appear to be more effective than the national norm. A high rate of retractions can alert to a vulnerability in an institution's integrity culture or a lack of methodological rigor. Seoul Women's University's excellent performance here suggests that its pre-publication quality control mechanisms are highly effective, protecting its reputation and indicating a strong culture of responsible research conduct.
The university maintains a prudent profile in institutional self-citation, with a Z-score of -0.726, which is notably lower and healthier than the national average of -0.393. This indicates that the institution manages its citation practices with more rigor than the national standard, fostering a culture of external validation. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines; however, high rates can signal scientific isolation or 'echo chambers'. The university's low score suggests its academic influence is validated by the broader scientific community, avoiding the risk of endogamous impact inflation and demonstrating healthy integration into global research conversations.
The institution's rate of publication in discontinued journals registers a Z-score of -0.164, which, while still in the low-risk category, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.217. This minor difference points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants review before it escalates. A high proportion of output in such journals can be a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. Although the current level is not alarming, this signal suggests a need to reinforce information literacy among researchers to ensure they consistently choose reputable, high-quality journals, thereby avoiding potential reputational risks and the misallocation of research efforts into 'predatory' or low-impact venues.
In the context of hyper-authored output, the institution presents a Z-score of -1.330, indicating a virtual absence of this risk and performing significantly better than the national average of -0.228. This low-profile consistency shows that the university's authorship practices are well-aligned with disciplinary norms and are not prone to inflation. Outside of 'Big Science' contexts, a high Z-score can indicate the dilution of individual accountability through practices like 'honorary' authorship. The university's extremely low score is a strong positive signal, reflecting transparency and clear accountability in the assignment of authorship credit.
The university exhibits a Z-score of -1.560 in this indicator, a very low value that is substantially better than the national average of -0.320. This result demonstrates low-profile consistency and indicates that the institution's scientific prestige is built upon strong internal capacity. A wide positive gap can signal that an institution's impact is overly dependent on external partners where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. Seoul Women's University's excellent score suggests a sustainable research model where its own-led research is impactful, confirming that its scientific excellence is structural and endogenous rather than reliant on a strategic position in collaborations led by others.
The institution shows a near-total absence of hyperprolific authors, with a Z-score of -1.413, far below the national average of -0.178. This reflects a healthy and balanced academic environment, consistent with a low-risk profile. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to risks such as coercive authorship or a prioritization of quantity over quality. The university's very low score in this area is a testament to its focus on the integrity of the scientific record, suggesting that its researchers' productivity is sustainable and credible.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution's output in its own journals is in total alignment with the national environment (Z-score of -0.252), which is characterized by maximum scientific security. This integrity synchrony indicates that the university does not rely excessively on its in-house publications. Over-dependence on institutional journals can raise conflicts of interest and bypass independent peer review. The university's low and nationally-aligned score demonstrates a commitment to external validation and global visibility, avoiding the risks of academic endogamy and ensuring its research is vetted through standard competitive channels.
The university displays a prudent profile regarding redundant output, with a Z-score of -0.446, indicating a lower risk level than the national average of -0.379. This suggests the institution manages its publication strategies with more rigor than its peers, discouraging practices like 'salami slicing'. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate data fragmentation designed to artificially inflate productivity. The university's commendable score reflects a culture that prioritizes the generation of significant new knowledge over the mere volume of publications, thereby contributing to a healthier and more efficient scientific ecosystem.
