| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.352 | -0.886 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.475 | -0.049 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.700 | -0.393 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.304 | -0.217 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.261 | -0.228 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.180 | -0.320 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.178 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.252 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.016 | -0.379 |
Sungshin Women's University demonstrates a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.614. The institution exhibits exceptional performance in maintaining very low-risk levels across multiple key indicators, particularly in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, Rate of Retracted Output, Rate of Hyper-Authored Output, and Rate of Hyperprolific Authors, consistently outperforming national averages. These strengths point to a culture of transparency, rigorous quality control, and responsible authorship. The primary areas for proactive monitoring, despite their low overall risk, are the Gap in Impact and the Rate of Redundant Output, where the university shows an incipient vulnerability compared to the national baseline. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas include Agricultural and Biological Sciences (ranking 8th in South Korea), Psychology (38th), and Economics, Econometrics and Finance (41st). Although the institutional mission was not specified for this analysis, this strong integrity framework is fundamental to any mission centered on academic excellence and social responsibility. The identified vulnerabilities, while minor, could potentially undermine long-term claims of research leadership and sustainability if left unaddressed. We recommend that the university leverage its solid integrity foundation to further enhance its research strategy, focusing on strengthening intellectual leadership in its key collaborations and reinforcing best practices in publication ethics to ensure that its quantitative output fully reflects substantive scientific advancement.
The institution presents a Z-score of -1.352, significantly lower than the national average of -0.886. This result indicates a state of total operational silence regarding this risk factor. The university's practices show an absence of risk signals that is even more pronounced than the already secure national standard. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the exceptionally low rate at Sungshin Women's University suggests highly transparent and unambiguous crediting of institutional contributions, effectively eliminating any suspicion of strategic "affiliation shopping" designed to artificially inflate institutional metrics.
With a Z-score of -0.475, the institution demonstrates a near-zero incidence of retracted publications, a figure that stands in positive contrast to the national Z-score of -0.049. This low-profile consistency reflects a strong alignment with responsible scientific practice. The absence of significant retraction events suggests that the university's quality control and supervision mechanisms prior to publication are functioning effectively. This performance is a hallmark of a mature integrity culture, where methodological rigor and responsible research conduct successfully prevent the systemic failures that can lead to post-publication corrections, thereby safeguarding the institution's scientific reputation.
The university's Z-score for institutional self-citation is -0.700, indicating a more prudent profile than the national average of -0.393. This demonstrates that the institution manages its citation practices with greater rigor than the national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university's lower rate signals a healthy reliance on external validation from the global scientific community. This practice mitigates the risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers' and ensures that the institution's academic influence is a reflection of broad recognition rather than being inflated by endogamous or internal dynamics.
Displaying a Z-score of -0.304, which is lower than the national average of -0.217, the institution exhibits a prudent profile in its choice of publication venues. This indicates that the university's researchers exercise more rigor than their national peers in avoiding journals that cease operations, often due to a failure to meet international ethical or quality standards. This diligent selection of dissemination channels is a crucial defense against reputational damage and the misallocation of research efforts, protecting the institution from association with 'predatory' or low-quality publishing practices.
The institution's Z-score of -1.261 is exceptionally low, especially when compared to the national Z-score of -0.228. This demonstrates a clear and consistent policy of responsible authorship that exceeds the national standard. While some 'Big Science' fields require extensive author lists, the university's low rate across disciplines suggests that it effectively avoids the risk of author list inflation. This fosters a culture of meaningful contribution and individual accountability, steering clear of practices like 'honorary' authorship and ensuring that credit is assigned transparently and justifiably.
The university's Z-score of -0.180, while in the low-risk category, is higher than the national average of -0.320, signaling an incipient vulnerability. This suggests that the institution's overall citation impact may be more reliant on research where it does not hold a leadership role compared to its national peers. A significant positive gap can indicate that scientific prestige is dependent and exogenous, rather than stemming from core internal capacity. This metric invites a strategic reflection on whether the university is building sustainable, long-term research excellence through its own intellectual leadership or primarily benefiting from a supporting role in external collaborations.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution shows a virtual absence of hyperprolific authors, a figure significantly stronger than the national average of -0.178. This low-profile consistency is a positive indicator of a healthy research environment. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the credibility of meaningful intellectual contribution and may signal underlying issues such as coercive authorship or a disproportionate focus on quantity over quality. The university's data suggests a balanced and sustainable approach to productivity that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of metrics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is almost identical to the national average of -0.252, demonstrating integrity synchrony with its environment. This total alignment with a secure national standard indicates a strong commitment to external validation. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the university sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and the risks of academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific output is subjected to independent, external peer review, which is essential for achieving global visibility and competitive validation, rather than using internal channels as potential 'fast tracks' for publication.
The institution's Z-score of -0.016, though classified as low risk, is notably higher than the national average of -0.379, pointing to an incipient vulnerability. This suggests a slightly greater tendency toward bibliographic overlap between publications than is typical for its peers. This pattern warrants review, as it can be an early indicator of 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a single study into multiple 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate publication counts. Such a practice can distort the scientific evidence base and should be monitored to ensure that the focus remains on producing significant, coherent contributions to knowledge.
