| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.290 | -0.886 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.080 | -0.049 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.669 | -0.393 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.414 | -0.217 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.118 | -0.228 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.565 | -0.320 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.815 | -0.178 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.252 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.471 | -0.379 |
Yonsei University demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.104, which indicates a performance well-aligned with global best practices. The institution's primary strengths lie in its diligent selection of publication venues and control over redundant publications, showing minimal exposure to predatory practices or academic endogamy. However, a cluster of medium-risk indicators related to authorship patterns and impact dependency—specifically in hyper-authorship, hyper-prolificacy, and the gap between general and leadership-driven impact—suggests areas for strategic monitoring. These observations coexist with the university's outstanding research performance, as evidenced by its top national rankings in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly in fields such as Business, Management and Accounting (1st in South Korea), Medicine (2nd), and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (2nd). To fully honor its mission of fostering "truth and freedom," it is crucial to address these authorship and impact dynamics, ensuring that its commitment to excellence is matched by unimpeachable transparency and sustainable, internally-driven scientific leadership. A proactive review of authorship policies and research evaluation criteria will help safeguard its reputation and reinforce its role as a beacon of integrity.
The institution's Z-score of -0.290, compared to the national average of -0.886, indicates a slight divergence from the national norm. While the country as a whole shows virtually no signals in this area, the university presents a low but noticeable rate of multiple affiliations, suggesting the need for a nuanced understanding of its collaborative patterns. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this deviation warrants attention to ensure that these practices are driven by genuine collaboration rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping."
With a Z-score of -0.080, the university's rate of retracted output is statistically normal and aligns closely with the national average of -0.049. This level of activity is consistent with the expected dynamics of a large-scale research institution. Retractions are complex events, and a low, controlled rate can signify responsible supervision and the honest correction of unintentional errors. The current value does not suggest systemic failures in pre-publication quality control but reflects a standard operational reality within a healthy research ecosystem.
The institution exhibits a prudent profile regarding self-citation, with a Z-score of -0.669 that is notably lower than the national average of -0.393. This indicates that the university manages its citation practices with greater rigor than its national peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of established research lines. By maintaining a rate below the national standard, the institution demonstrates strong external validation of its work, effectively avoiding the "echo chambers" that can arise from excessive internal validation and ensuring its academic influence is driven by global community recognition.
The university's Z-score of -0.414 for output in discontinued journals is exceptionally low, positioning it well below the already low-risk national average of -0.217. This demonstrates a consistent and effective policy of due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. The near-total absence of this risk signal confirms that the institution's researchers are well-informed and avoid channeling their work through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, thereby protecting the university from reputational damage and ensuring resources are not wasted on predatory or low-quality practices.
A moderate deviation is observed in the rate of hyper-authored output, where the university's Z-score is 0.118, contrasting with the national average of -0.228. This suggests the institution is more sensitive to this risk factor than its national peers. This elevated rate can indicate potential author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. This signal serves as a prompt to review authorship practices and distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and the potential for 'honorary' or political authorship, ensuring transparency in research contributions.
The university shows a moderate deviation from the national trend regarding its impact dependency, with a Z-score of 0.565 compared to the country's -0.320. This positive gap, where overall impact is significantly higher than the impact of research led by the institution, signals a potential sustainability risk. This value suggests that a significant portion of the university's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, rather than structurally embedded. It invites a strategic reflection on whether its high-impact metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
With a Z-score of 0.815, the rate of hyperprolific authors at the university shows a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.178, indicating a greater sensitivity to this risk. Extreme individual publication volumes challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation. A review is warranted to ensure that evaluation systems prioritize the integrity of the scientific record over sheer volume.
The university demonstrates integrity synchrony with the national context regarding its use of institutional journals, with a Z-score of -0.268 that is almost identical to the country's average of -0.252. This total alignment reflects a shared environment of maximum scientific security in this area. The minimal reliance on in-house journals avoids potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, ensuring that scientific production undergoes independent external peer review. This practice strengthens the global visibility and competitive validation of its research.
The institution maintains a very low-risk profile for redundant output, with a Z-score of -0.471, which is even lower than the national average of -0.379. This absence of risk signals is consistent with a national environment that also shows control in this area. The data indicates that the university's research culture effectively discourages the practice of 'salami slicing,' where studies are fragmented into minimal units to inflate productivity. This commitment to publishing significant, coherent findings upholds the integrity of the scientific evidence base and respects the academic review system.
