| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.155 | -0.886 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.146 | -0.049 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.320 | -0.393 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.259 | -0.217 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.673 | -0.228 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.277 | -0.320 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.210 | -0.178 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
0.161 | -0.252 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.433 | -0.379 |
Sookmyung Women's University demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.451. The institution exhibits exceptional strengths in maintaining very low-risk levels for Rate of Multiple Affiliations, Rate of Institutional Self-Citation, and Rate of Hyperprolific Authors, indicating a strong culture of transparency and external validation. While performance across most indicators is commendable, a notable vulnerability is the medium-risk level associated with the Rate of Output in Institutional Journals, which deviates significantly from the national standard. This integrity framework supports a strong research portfolio, evidenced by SCImago Institutions Rankings data that places the university among the top national performers in fields such as Environmental Science (7th), Physics and Astronomy (14th), and Chemistry (20th). This strong performance aligns with the mission to become a "global leader in women’s education"; however, the risk of academic endogamy identified could impede this ambition by limiting the global visibility and independent validation essential for international leadership. By strategically addressing its internal publication practices, the University can fully leverage its solid integrity foundation to achieve its global aspirations.
The institution's Z-score of -1.155 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.886, indicating a complete absence of risk signals in this area. This demonstrates an operational standard that is even more rigorous than the already secure national environment. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the University's exceptionally low rate confirms that its institutional credit is not being strategically inflated through "affiliation shopping." This reflects highly transparent and well-defined affiliation practices, ensuring clear accountability in its research output.
With a Z-score of -0.146, the institution displays a more prudent profile than the national average of -0.049. This suggests that its internal processes are managed with greater rigor than the national standard. Retractions can be complex events, but a rate significantly lower than its peers indicates that the institution's pre-publication quality control mechanisms are effective in preventing systemic failures. This performance points to a healthy integrity culture where methodological rigor is prioritized, minimizing the likelihood of recurring malpractice.
The institution's Z-score of -1.320 (very low risk) shows a positive alignment with the country's low-risk environment (Z-score -0.393). This absence of risk signals demonstrates a healthy integration with the broader scientific community. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the University's exceptionally low rate confirms it is not operating within a scientific "echo chamber." This result suggests that the institution's academic influence is built on robust external scrutiny and global community recognition rather than being inflated by endogamous citation dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.259 is statistically normal and aligns closely with the national average of -0.217. This indicates that the risk level is as expected for its context and size, with no significant deviation from national practices. While any publication in journals that fail to meet international standards is a concern, the current low rate does not signal a systemic failure in due diligence. Instead, it reflects a baseline risk that is consistent with its peers, suggesting a standard level of information literacy in selecting publication venues.
The institution maintains a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.673, which is considerably lower than the national average of -0.228. This indicates that its authorship practices are managed with more rigor than the national standard. While extensive author lists are legitimate in "Big Science," this institution's low rate outside those contexts suggests it effectively curbs author list inflation. This commitment to meaningful contribution helps preserve individual accountability and transparency, distinguishing necessary collaboration from honorary or political authorship.
With a Z-score of -0.277, the institution's risk level is low but slightly higher than the national average of -0.320, signaling an incipient vulnerability that warrants review. This small gap suggests that the institution's overall scientific prestige is marginally more dependent on external collaborations than on research where it exercises direct intellectual leadership. While not a current threat, this dynamic should be monitored to ensure that its reputation for excellence is being built upon a sustainable foundation of internal capacity and not becoming overly reliant on an exogenous, partner-driven impact.
The institution's Z-score of -1.210 places it in the very low-risk category, a result that is consistent with and improves upon the low-risk national standard (Z-score -0.178). This complete absence of risk signals indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality in its research environment. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution, but this institution's data confirms the absence of dynamics such as coercive authorship or data fragmentation, reinforcing a culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over inflated metrics.
This indicator presents a monitoring alert, as the institution's Z-score of 0.161 (medium risk) is an unusual and significant deviation from the very low-risk national standard (Z-score -0.252). This discrepancy requires a careful review of its causes. An excessive dependence on in-house journals can create a conflict of interest, as the institution acts as both judge and party in the publication process. This practice carries a high risk of academic endogamy, where research may bypass independent external peer review, potentially limiting its global visibility and using internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate CVs without standard competitive validation.
The institution exhibits a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.433, which is lower than the national average of -0.379. This demonstrates that its research publication processes are managed with more rigor than the national standard. A low rate of massive bibliographic overlap between publications suggests that the institution effectively discourages 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a single study into minimal publishable units. This commitment to presenting coherent, significant findings protects the integrity of the scientific evidence base and prioritizes new knowledge over artificially inflated productivity metrics.
