| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.468 | -0.886 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.616 | -0.049 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.286 | -0.393 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.094 | -0.217 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.474 | -0.228 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.007 | -0.320 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.178 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.252 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.179 | -0.379 |
Catholic Kwandong University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.510 that indicates a performance significantly stronger than the global average. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths in areas critical to research ethics, showing very low risk signals for Multiple Affiliations, Retracted Output, Institutional Self-Citation, Hyperprolific Authors, and Output in Institutional Journals. These results reflect a solid foundation of internal governance and a commitment to external validation. However, two areas require strategic attention: a medium risk level in the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals and the Rate of Redundant Output (Salami Slicing), which suggest vulnerabilities in publication channel selection and research dissemination practices. Thematically, the university's strengths are evident in its SCImago Institutions Rankings for key areas such as Medicine, Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, and Environmental Science. While the institutional mission was not specified, any pursuit of academic excellence and social responsibility is fundamentally undermined by practices that compromise research quality. The identified risks, though contained, could erode the credibility of its strong thematic areas. Therefore, a proactive approach to enhancing researcher literacy on publication ethics and reviewing productivity incentives is recommended to consolidate its already commendable position and ensure its scientific contributions are both impactful and unimpeachable.
The institution exhibits an exceptionally low rate of multiple affiliations, with a Z-score of -1.468, which is even more conservative than the national average of -0.886. This represents a state of total operational silence regarding this indicator, suggesting a complete absence of risk signals. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The university's data indicates that its affiliation practices are transparent and free from any patterns that might suggest "affiliation shopping," reinforcing a culture of clear and honest academic credit attribution.
With a Z-score of -0.616, the institution demonstrates a very low incidence of retracted publications, a figure that stands in positive contrast to the low-risk national benchmark (-0.049). This low-profile consistency suggests that the university's internal quality control mechanisms are functioning effectively. Retractions can be complex; some signify responsible supervision in correcting honest errors. However, a rate as low as this, particularly when compared to the national context, strongly indicates that systemic failures in pre-publication review are not a concern, reflecting a robust institutional integrity culture that prevents methodological or ethical issues from escalating.
The university's Z-score for institutional self-citation is -1.286, a very low value that is significantly below the national average of -0.393. This result demonstrates a healthy pattern of external engagement and validation, aligning with best practices in a national context that already shows low risk. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but high rates can create 'echo chambers' and artificially inflate impact. The institution's performance effectively mitigates this risk, showing that its academic influence is built on recognition from the global scientific community rather than on endogamous internal dynamics.
A moderate deviation from the national norm is observed in this indicator, with the institution registering a Z-score of 0.094 (Medium risk) against a low-risk country average of -0.217. This suggests the center has a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. Publishing in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This score indicates that a portion of the university's research is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks. It signals an urgent need to enhance information literacy among researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution maintains a prudent profile in its authorship practices, with a Z-score of -0.474, which is more rigorous than the national standard of -0.228. This demonstrates effective management of authorship attribution. Outside of "Big Science" contexts where large author lists are normal, high rates of hyper-authorship can indicate inflation of author lists, diluting individual accountability. The university's controlled rate suggests that it successfully distinguishes between necessary collaboration and questionable practices like 'honorary' authorship, thereby upholding transparency in its research contributions.
The institution's Z-score of -0.007, while within the low-risk category, is notably higher than the national average of -0.320, signaling an incipient vulnerability that warrants review. A wide positive gap in this indicator suggests that an institution's scientific prestige may be dependent on external partners rather than its own structural capacity. The university's score points to a potential reliance on collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership. This invites a strategic reflection on whether its high-impact metrics are a result of genuine internal capabilities or a dependency on external leadership, which could pose a long-term sustainability risk.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution shows a near-total absence of hyperprolific authors, a figure that contrasts sharply and positively with the low-risk national average of -0.178. This low-profile consistency indicates a healthy institutional research culture. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to risks such as coercive authorship or the artificial division of studies. The university's data confirms an environment that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over sheer volume, fostering a sustainable and credible approach to academic productivity.
The university's Z-score of -0.268 for publications in its own journals is in perfect alignment with the national average of -0.252, demonstrating integrity synchrony with a secure national environment. While in-house journals can be valuable, excessive dependence on them creates conflicts of interest and risks academic endogamy by bypassing independent peer review. The institution's very low rate shows a clear commitment to seeking external, competitive validation for its research, ensuring its work is exposed to global scrutiny and avoiding the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts.
This indicator reveals a moderate deviation from the national trend, with the institution scoring 1.179 (Medium risk) compared to the country's low-risk average of -0.379. This suggests the university is more exposed to this particular risk than its peers. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications is a key sign of 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a single study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This high value serves as an alert that such practices may be occurring, which can distort the scientific evidence base and overburden the peer review system. A review of institutional incentives that may inadvertently prioritize publication volume over substance is strongly advised.
