| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.153 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.447 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.404 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.268 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.191 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.801 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -0.515 |
The Institute of Disaster Prevention demonstrates a robust and generally well-controlled scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall score of -0.322. The institution's primary strengths lie in its governance of authorship and publication practices, with exceptionally low risk signals in areas such as Retracted Output, Hyper-Authored Output, Hyperprolific Authors, and Redundant Output. These results indicate a strong internal culture of accountability and methodological rigor. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a high dependency on external collaborations for impact, a tendency towards institutional self-citation, and a moderate rate of publication in discontinued journals. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the institution's most prominent thematic areas are Earth and Planetary Sciences, Physics and Astronomy, and Agricultural and Biological Sciences. While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, the identified vulnerabilities—particularly those related to academic endogamy and journal selection—could challenge universal academic values of excellence and social responsibility, which depend on external validation and global impact. By addressing these specific risks, the Institute can build upon its solid integrity foundation to enhance its structural research capacity and international standing.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.153, which is lower than the national average of -0.062. This indicates that the Institute manages its affiliation practices with more rigor than the national standard, maintaining a prudent and well-controlled profile. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution's controlled rate suggests it is effectively avoiding strategic attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” thereby ensuring that its collaborative footprint is transparent and justified.
With a Z-score of -0.447, the institution shows a near-total absence of risk signals in this area, a profile that is consistent with and even stronger than the low-risk national standard (-0.050). Retractions can be complex events, but a high rate often suggests systemic failures in quality control. The Institute's very low score is a positive indicator of effective pre-publication supervision and a healthy integrity culture, demonstrating that its mechanisms for ensuring methodological rigor are functioning correctly and preventing the type of recurring malpractice that would require corrective action.
The Institute of Disaster Prevention shows a Z-score of 0.404 in this area, which is significantly higher than the national average of 0.045. This suggests that the institution is more exposed to elevated self-citation patterns than its peers within the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of established research lines; however, this disproportionately high rate can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' This value warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than validated by broader global community recognition, a trend that warrants strategic review.
The institution's Z-score of 0.268 represents a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.024, indicating a greater sensitivity to this risk factor compared to its peers. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This score indicates that a portion of the institution's scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. This exposes the institution to reputational risks and suggests an urgent need to improve information literacy among its researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution's Z-score of -1.191 is exceptionally low, aligning with the low-risk national context (-0.721) but demonstrating even stricter control. This absence of risk signals is a positive finding. In specific "Big Science" fields, extensive author lists are legitimate; however, outside those contexts, high rates can indicate author list inflation. The Institute's very low score confirms that its authorship practices are transparent and accountable, effectively distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and potentially problematic 'honorary' authorship, thus preserving the integrity of individual contributions.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 0.801, a level of risk that is highly unusual when compared to the national standard of -0.809. This stark contrast constitutes a monitoring alert and requires a review of its causes. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a sustainability risk. This score suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is heavily dependent and exogenous, not structural. It invites deep reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise intellectual leadership.
The institution demonstrates an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.413, in stark contrast to the national average of 0.425, which indicates a medium level of risk. This result shows a clear preventive isolation, as the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics related to hyperprolific authorship that are more prevalent nationally. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The institution's very low score indicates it has effectively prevented potential imbalances between quantity and quality, avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or 'salami slicing' and thereby upholding the integrity of its scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a very low incidence of this risk, a profile consistent with the low-risk national environment (-0.010). This absence of risk signals is a positive indicator of its publication strategy. While in-house journals can be valuable, excessive dependence on them raises conflicts of interest. The Institute's minimal use of such channels demonstrates a commitment to independent external peer review, which enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its research, avoiding the potential for academic endogamy or the use of internal journals as 'fast tracks' to inflate productivity.
The institution's Z-score of -1.186 signifies a total operational silence regarding this risk, placing it in an even more secure position than the already low-risk national average (-0.515). This result strongly suggests that the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, known as 'salami slicing,' is not a feature of the institution's research culture. By promoting the publication of significant, coherent bodies of work, the Institute contributes positively to the scientific record and avoids overburdening the peer-review system with fragmented data.
