| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.113 | -0.886 |
|
Retracted Output
|
6.081 | -0.049 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.696 | -0.393 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.072 | -0.217 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.212 | -0.228 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.504 | -0.320 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.903 | -0.178 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.252 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.756 | -0.379 |
The University of Suwon presents a complex integrity profile with an overall risk score of 1.699, indicating areas of both exemplary practice and significant concern. The institution demonstrates robust control and alignment with national standards in areas such as hyper-authorship, the use of institutional journals, and the prevalence of hyperprolific authors. However, these strengths are counterbalanced by a critical alert regarding the Rate of Retracted Output, which is a severe outlier, and medium-risk signals in the Gap between its overall and led-research impact and the Rate of Redundant Output. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's thematic strengths are most prominent in Energy (ranked 36th nationally), Mathematics (65th), and Environmental Science (68th). The identified vulnerabilities, particularly the high rate of retractions, directly challenge the universal academic mission of generating reliable knowledge and upholding excellence. Such a risk can undermine the social responsibility inherent in higher education and erode public trust. A proactive and targeted strategy to reinforce pre-publication quality control and research methodology training is crucial to mitigate these risks, align operational practices with thematic strengths, and secure the institution's long-term scientific credibility.
The institution's Z-score of -0.113 shows a slightly higher rate of multiple affiliations compared to the national average of -0.886, which is characterized by very low activity. This subtle divergence suggests the emergence of risk signals at the institution that are not prevalent across the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this indicator warrants observation to ensure these practices are driven by genuine collaboration rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping”.
The University of Suwon's Z-score for retracted output is 6.081, a figure that represents a severe and atypical discrepancy when compared to the low-risk national average of -0.049. This suggests that the institution's rate of retractions is an outlier, demanding a deep integrity assessment. A rate this significantly higher than the norm alerts to a potential systemic vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. It indicates that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing, pointing to possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation.
With a Z-score of -0.696, the institution demonstrates a lower rate of institutional self-citation than the national average of -0.393. This prudent profile suggests that the university manages its citation practices with more rigor than the national standard. By maintaining a rate below its peers, the institution effectively avoids signals of scientific isolation or 'echo chambers,' where an institution might validate its own work without sufficient external scrutiny, thereby reinforcing the global community recognition of its research.
The institution's Z-score for publications in discontinued journals is -0.072, slightly higher than the national average of -0.217. This indicates an incipient vulnerability, as the university shows early signals of this risk that warrant review before they escalate. This trend suggests a need to strengthen due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. An increasing rate could expose the institution to severe reputational risks by channeling scientific production through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, indicating a need for enhanced information literacy to avoid 'predatory' practices.
The University of Suwon exhibits a Z-score of -1.212 for hyper-authored output, which is significantly lower than the national average of -0.228. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with, and even improves upon, the national standard. This result indicates that the institution's authorship practices are well-controlled and do not show signs of author list inflation, effectively promoting individual accountability and transparency in its publications.
The institution's Z-score of 1.504 for the impact gap represents a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.320, indicating a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. This wide positive gap—where global impact is notably higher than the impact of research led by the institution itself—signals a potential sustainability risk. It suggests that a significant portion of the university's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, rather than structural. This invites reflection on whether its high-impact metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
With a Z-score of -0.903, the institution shows a significantly lower rate of hyperprolific authors compared to the national average of -0.178. This reflects a low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals is in line with the national standard. This strong result suggests a healthy balance between productivity and quality, avoiding the potential pitfalls associated with extreme publication volumes, such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, thereby safeguarding the integrity of its scientific record.
The institution's Z-score for output in its own journals is -0.268, which is in very close alignment with the national average of -0.252. This demonstrates integrity synchrony, reflecting a shared operational standard within an environment of maximum scientific security. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the university mitigates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review and achieves global visibility.
The University of Suwon's Z-score for redundant output is 0.756, a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.379. This indicates that the institution shows a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. The score alerts to the potential practice of dividing coherent studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, also known as 'salami slicing.' This practice can distort the available scientific evidence and overburden the review system, suggesting a need to reinforce policies that prioritize the publication of significant new knowledge over sheer volume.
