Asia University, Taiwan

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Asia University, Taiwan, demonstrates a robust overall performance with a score of 0.914, characterized by a dual profile of exceptional integrity in core academic practices alongside significant risks in specific areas of research metrics and affiliation strategies. The institution exhibits notable strengths in maintaining scientific autonomy, with very low risks in dependency on external leadership for impact and minimal academic endogamy, as seen in its low rates of self-citation and publication in institutional journals. However, this solid foundation is contrasted by significant alerts in the rates of multiple affiliations and hyperprolific authors, and moderate risks in publication channel selection and potential output fragmentation. The university demonstrates notable leadership in key areas, as reflected in its SCImago Institutions Rankings, with top-10 national positions in Economics, Econometrics and Finance; Business, Management and Accounting; Computer Science; and Dentistry. This profile presents a challenge to the institutional mission of "abiding by truth, virtue, and beauty." The identified risks, particularly those related to authorship and affiliation strategies, could be perceived as prioritizing quantitative metrics over the genuine pursuit of knowledge, potentially undermining the commitment to "serve society" with transparent and robust science. Therefore, a strategic focus on reinforcing publication and affiliation policies is recommended to ensure that these operational vulnerabilities do not overshadow the institution's clear academic strengths and its foundational mission.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of 6.948, a figure that stands out critically against the national average of 1.166. This suggests that the university is not only participating in a national trend but is intensifying it, showing a much higher propensity for this practice than its peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of collaboration, such a disproportionately high rate signals a critical risk of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” This practice could undermine the perceived autonomy and integrity of the university's research, suggesting that institutional credit may be pursued more aggressively than is standard, amplifying a vulnerability already present in the national scientific system.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.193, the institution shows a lower rate of retractions compared to the national average of 0.051, which sits at a medium risk level. This indicates a degree of institutional resilience, suggesting that the university's internal quality control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks observed elsewhere in the country. A low retraction rate, especially in a context with higher national signals, points towards responsible supervision and robust pre-publication review processes that successfully prevent the types of unintentional errors or malpractice that often lead to retractions, thereby safeguarding the institution's scientific record.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of -0.599 is well below the national average of -0.204, both of which are in a low-risk range. This prudent profile indicates that the university manages its citation practices with more rigor than the national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's particularly low rate demonstrates a strong orientation towards external validation and integration into the global scientific community. This avoids the creation of 'echo chambers' and confirms that its academic influence is built on broad recognition rather than being inflated by internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The university's Z-score of 0.282 places it at a medium risk level, showing a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.165, which is in the low-risk category. This indicates a greater sensitivity to risk factors in publication choices compared to its national peers. A high proportion of output in journals that cease to meet international ethical or quality standards constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence. This score suggests an urgent need to strengthen information literacy and guidance for researchers to avoid channeling valuable scientific work into predatory or low-quality media, which poses a severe reputational risk and represents a waste of resources.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.951, the institution maintains a more prudent profile than the national average of -0.671, even though both are within a low-risk context. This demonstrates that the university manages its authorship practices with greater rigor than the national standard. Outside of "Big Science" disciplines, extensive author lists can indicate inflation and dilute accountability. The institution's controlled rate suggests a healthy approach to authorship, effectively distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and questionable practices like 'honorary' authorships, thus promoting transparency and individual responsibility.

Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.176, indicating a very low risk and a healthier balance than the national average of -0.559. This low-profile consistency suggests an absence of risk signals in this area, aligning with a secure national standard. A minimal gap between the impact of its total output and the output where it holds leadership demonstrates strong internal capacity and sustainability. This result confirms that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and generated by its own research leadership, rather than being dependent on its strategic positioning in external collaborations.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of 3.111 is at a significant risk level, drastically amplifying the moderate vulnerability present in the national system (Z-score: 0.005). This extreme value points to a critical issue with authorship concentration. While high productivity can be legitimate, publication volumes exceeding human capacity for meaningful contribution alert to potential imbalances between quantity and quality. This indicator suggests a high risk of practices such as coercive authorship or assigning credit without real participation, dynamics that prioritize metric inflation over the integrity of the scientific record and require immediate review.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution operates at a very low risk level, well below the low-risk national average of -0.075. This demonstrates a consistent and healthy practice, with no risk signals in an already stable national environment. By minimizing reliance on its own journals, the university avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which strengthens its global visibility and confirms that its researchers compete on the international stage rather than using internal 'fast tracks' for publication.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of 1.459 reflects a medium risk level, a moderate deviation from the low-risk national context (Z-score: -0.176). This suggests the university is more sensitive than its peers to practices that can lead to data fragmentation. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications often indicates 'salami slicing,' where a single study is divided into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity. This value serves as a warning, as such practices distort the scientific evidence and overburden the review system, prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.