| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.343 | -0.886 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.606 | -0.049 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.502 | -0.393 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.715 | -0.217 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.248 | -0.228 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.952 | -0.320 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.178 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.252 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.654 | -0.379 |
Sun Moon University presents a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, as evidenced by an overall risk score of -0.509. The institution demonstrates exceptional performance across the majority of indicators, with eight out of nine metrics falling within the 'low' or 'very low' risk categories. This signals a strong institutional culture of ethical research and responsible publication practices. Key strengths are observed in the minimal rates of hyperprolific authorship, multiple affiliations, and retracted publications, indicating rigorous internal controls. The primary area for strategic attention is the 'Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals,' which registers as a moderate deviation from the national standard. Thematically, the university shows significant strength in areas identified by the SCImago Institutions Rankings, including Computer Science, Engineering, Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, and Chemistry. While the institution's specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, any pursuit of academic excellence and social responsibility is fundamentally supported by high scientific integrity. The identified risk of publishing in discontinued journals could, however, undermine this by associating the university's research with low-quality channels, thereby affecting its reputation. The university is encouraged to celebrate its outstanding integrity framework while implementing targeted training and due diligence policies to address this single vulnerability, further solidifying its position as a leader in responsible research.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.343, significantly lower than the national average of -0.886. This result indicates a complete absence of risk signals in this area, placing the university in an even more secure position than its national peers. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. Sun Moon University's exceptionally low score demonstrates a clear and transparent affiliation policy, free from any patterns that would suggest "affiliation shopping" or the artificial amplification of its collaborative footprint.
With a Z-score of -0.606, the institution maintains a very low-risk profile that aligns with the low-risk national standard (Z-score: -0.049). This consistency suggests that the university's internal quality control mechanisms are functioning effectively. A high rate of retractions can alert to a systemic vulnerability in an institution's integrity culture or a lack of methodological rigor. The university's minimal retraction rate indicates that its pre-publication review and supervision processes are robust, successfully preventing the types of recurring errors or malpractice that would necessitate such corrective actions.
The institution's Z-score of -0.502 is below the national average of -0.393, reflecting a prudent and rigorous approach to citation practices. This demonstrates that the university manages its processes with more control than the national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but high rates can signal scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' The university's contained score suggests its research is validated by the broader scientific community, avoiding the risk of endogamous impact inflation and confirming its academic influence is based on external recognition rather than internal dynamics.
The institution shows a Z-score of 0.715, a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.217, which is in the low-risk category. This disparity highlights a greater sensitivity to this risk factor compared to its peers and constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting publication venues. A high proportion of output in such journals indicates that scientific work is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. This exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need to enhance information literacy among its researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution's Z-score of -1.248 is exceptionally low, especially when compared to the national average of -0.228. This demonstrates a clear absence of risk signals related to inflated author lists. High rates of hyper-authorship can indicate a dilution of individual accountability and transparency through practices like 'honorary' authorship. The university's very low score points to a culture where authorship is assigned based on meaningful contribution, ensuring clarity and integrity in the attribution of scientific work.
With a Z-score of -0.952, significantly below the national average of -0.320, the institution demonstrates a strong and healthy scientific profile. This very low score indicates that there is no significant gap between the impact of its overall output and the output where it exercises intellectual leadership. This signals that the university's scientific prestige is not dependent on external partners but is a result of its own structural capacity and internal research excellence, mitigating any risk of a dependent or exogenous reputation.
The institution registers an extremely low Z-score of -1.413, far below the national average of -0.178. This result reflects an environment with no signals of risk related to extreme individual publication volumes. Such volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to risks like coercive authorship or the prioritization of metrics over scientific integrity. The university's score indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, reinforcing a research culture that values significant contributions over sheer productivity.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is in almost perfect alignment with the national average of -0.252, demonstrating integrity synchrony with its environment. Both scores are in the very low-risk category, indicating that the university avoids excessive dependence on its own journals. This practice mitigates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, where production might bypass independent external peer review. By relying on external validation, the institution ensures its research achieves global visibility and competitive validation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.654 is well below the national average of -0.379, indicating a very low-risk profile consistent with a commitment to high-quality research. This low score shows no evidence of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' a practice where a single study is divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. The university's performance suggests its researchers are focused on producing coherent and significant new knowledge, thereby strengthening the scientific record rather than overburdening the review system with redundant publications.
