| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.863 | -0.886 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.878 | -0.049 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.303 | -0.393 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
2.294 | -0.217 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.284 | -0.228 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.018 | -0.320 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.178 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.252 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.241 | -0.379 |
Woosuk University demonstrates a strong foundation of scientific integrity, with an overall score of 0.349 reflecting robust performance across a majority of indicators. The institution exhibits exceptional control in areas such as Institutional Self-Citation, Hyper-Authored Output, and the management of Hyperprolific Authors, indicating a healthy and collaborative research environment. These strengths provide a solid base for its notable academic contributions, particularly in its highest-ranked thematic areas according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data: Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, Chemistry, and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics. However, this positive profile is contrasted by significant risks in the Rate of Retracted Output and medium-level risks in publishing within Discontinued Journals and Redundant Output. These vulnerabilities directly challenge the institutional mission of fostering professionals with "Competence, Conviction and Commitment," as they suggest potential gaps in quality assurance and dissemination strategy. To fully align its practices with its mission, it is recommended that the university leverage its many operational strengths to implement targeted interventions, focusing on enhancing pre-publication review processes and providing clear guidance on selecting high-quality publication venues.
With a Z-score of -0.863, Woosuk University's Rate of Multiple Affiliations is in total alignment with the national average of -0.886, reflecting an environment of maximum scientific security. This integrity synchrony indicates that the institution's collaborative practices are consistent with national norms. The data shows no evidence of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” confirming that multiple affiliations at the university stem from legitimate researcher mobility and partnerships.
The institution's Z-score for the Rate of Retracted Output is 0.878, a figure that marks a severe discrepancy when compared to the national average of -0.049. This atypical level of risk activity is a critical alert that requires a deep integrity assessment. While retractions can sometimes be a sign of responsible supervision and the correction of honest errors, a rate significantly higher than the national standard suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture points to possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor, requiring immediate qualitative verification by management.
The university's Z-score of -1.303 for Institutional Self-Citation is exceptionally low, positioning it well below the national average of -0.393. This low-profile consistency demonstrates a strong outward-looking research culture, where the absence of risk signals aligns with a healthy national standard. This result indicates that the institution avoids the 'echo chambers' that can arise from excessive self-validation. Instead, its academic influence is validated by the broader global community, showing no signs of endogamous impact inflation.
With a Z-score of 2.294, the university's Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals shows a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.217. This suggests the institution has a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. A high proportion of publications in such journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score indicates that a significant portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
Woosuk University shows a Z-score of -1.284 in Hyper-Authored Output, a very low value compared to the national average of -0.228. This low-profile consistency indicates that the institution's authorship practices are well-controlled and align with national standards. The data confirms an absence of risk signals related to author list inflation or the dilution of individual accountability. This suggests that authorship is assigned transparently, distinguishing legitimate collaboration from 'honorary' or political authorship practices.
The institution's Z-score of -1.018 for the impact gap is significantly lower than the national average of -0.320, demonstrating low-profile consistency and an absence of risk signals in this area. A low gap indicates that the institution's scientific prestige is not overly dependent on external partners but is instead structural and generated by its own intellectual leadership. This strong result suggests that the university's excellence metrics are a reflection of real internal capacity, a key marker of research sustainability and autonomy.
With an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.413 compared to the national average of -0.178, the university demonstrates excellent control over the Rate of Hyperprolific Authors. This low-profile consistency and absence of risk signals suggest a healthy balance between productivity and quality. The institution shows no signs of the extreme individual publication volumes that can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution, thereby avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation.
The university's Z-score for output in its own journals is -0.268, a value that reflects total alignment with the national average of -0.252. This integrity synchrony indicates that the institution operates within an environment of maximum scientific security regarding this indicator. The data shows no risk of academic endogamy or excessive dependence on in-house journals, suggesting that scientific production is not bypassing independent external peer review. This practice enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its research.
The institution's Z-score of 1.241 for Redundant Output represents a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.379, indicating a greater sensitivity to this risk factor compared to its peers. This value serves as an alert for the potential practice of 'salami slicing,' where a coherent study may be fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. Such a pattern can distort the available scientific evidence and overburden the review system, signaling a need to reinforce policies that prioritize the publication of significant new knowledge over sheer volume.
