| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.041 | 1.166 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.540 | 0.051 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.660 | -0.204 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.202 | -0.165 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.198 | -0.671 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.843 | -0.559 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | 0.005 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.075 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.590 | -0.176 |
With an overall integrity score of -0.374, Chang Jung Christian University demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, outperforming national benchmarks in the majority of risk indicators. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of retracted output, hyperprolific authorship, and redundant publications, showcasing a strong culture of quality control and responsible research conduct that effectively insulates it from more prevalent national risks. However, this strong foundation is contrasted by two areas requiring strategic attention: a moderate rate of publication in discontinued journals and a significant gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work where it holds intellectual leadership. These integrity metrics underpin the university's recognized academic standing, including its national rankings in Social Sciences (20th) and Business, Management and Accounting (26th) from SCImago Institutions Rankings data. While the university's high integrity standards align perfectly with its mission to uphold "righteousness" and "preach the truth," the identified vulnerabilities could challenge its commitment to "sustainable education" and "enlightening wisdom." By addressing these specific risks, Chang Jung Christian University can ensure its operational practices fully reflect its core values, reinforcing its reputation for academic excellence and social responsibility.
The institution registers a Z-score of -0.041, in contrast to the national average of 1.166. This result suggests a high degree of institutional resilience, as the university's control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks related to affiliation strategies that are more common at the national level. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, the university's low rate indicates it is not engaging in practices that could be perceived as strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping,” thereby maintaining a clear and transparent representation of its collaborative footprint.
With a Z-score of -0.540 compared to the national average of 0.051, the institution demonstrates a state of preventive isolation. It effectively avoids the risk dynamics concerning publication retractions that are moderately present in its national environment. This exceptionally low rate signifies that the university's quality control and supervision mechanisms prior to publication are robust and effective. It reflects a strong integrity culture that prevents the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that can lead to systemic vulnerabilities, reinforcing the reliability of its scientific record.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is -0.660, which is notably lower than the national average of -0.204. This prudent profile shows 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 very low rate demonstrates a commitment to external validation and avoids any perception of being a scientific 'echo chamber.' This practice ensures that the institution's academic influence is measured by global community recognition rather than being inflated by internal dynamics.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.202, while the national average is -0.165. This score points to a moderate deviation, suggesting the university shows a greater sensitivity to this particular risk factor than its national peers. A high proportion of output in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. The current Z-score indicates that a portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to reputational risks and suggesting a need for enhanced information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution's Z-score is -1.198, significantly below the national average of -0.671. This demonstrates low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals in this area aligns with, and even improves upon, the low-risk national standard. Outside of 'Big Science' contexts, hyper-authorship can indicate author list inflation. The university's very low score confirms that its authorship practices are transparent and accountable, effectively distinguishing legitimate collaboration from 'honorary' or political authorship and upholding individual responsibility.
With a Z-score of 0.843, the institution's performance deviates moderately from the national average of -0.559. This gap suggests that the university is more sensitive than its peers to a specific risk: its overall scientific prestige appears to be more dependent on external collaborations than on research where it exercises intellectual leadership. A high value in this indicator signals a potential sustainability risk, as it suggests that impact may be exogenous rather than a result of structural, internal capacity. This invites reflection on building and showcasing the institution's own leadership in high-impact research.
The institution has a Z-score of -1.413, in stark contrast to the national average of 0.005. This figure indicates a state of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics associated with hyperprolificacy observed in its environment. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's exceptionally low score is a strong positive signal, indicating a healthy balance between quantity and quality and an absence of practices like coercive authorship or authorship assignment without real participation.
The institution's Z-score is -0.268, well below the national average of -0.075. This reflects a low-profile consistency, as the near-total absence of this risk signal is in line with the country's already low-risk standard. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and suggest academic endogamy. The university's minimal use of its own journals for publication demonstrates a commitment to independent, external peer review, which enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its research output.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.590, which is significantly lower than the national average of -0.176. This result indicates a low-profile consistency, with the university's absence of risk signals aligning with the national standard for good practice. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' The university's very low score confirms that its researchers are not artificially inflating productivity by dividing studies into minimal publishable units, thereby contributing significant new knowledge and respecting the integrity of the scientific record.
