| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.237 | 1.166 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.709 | 0.051 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.858 | -0.204 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.237 | -0.165 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.128 | -0.671 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.736 | -0.559 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.873 | 0.005 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.075 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.558 | -0.176 |
Cheng Shiu University demonstrates a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.467. This performance indicates that the institution's research practices are significantly healthier than the global average, with notable strengths in preventing retractions, hyper-authorship, institutional self-citation, and redundant publications. These low-risk areas form a solid foundation for the university's academic pursuits. The primary vulnerability identified is a medium-risk signal in the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, which requires strategic attention. The university's strong research standing, particularly in thematic areas such as Chemistry (Top 20 in Taiwan), Energy, and Environmental Science (both Top 30 in Taiwan) according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, is well-supported by this overall culture of integrity. However, to fully align with a mission of academic excellence and social responsibility, it is crucial to address the identified risk in publication channel selection. Ensuring that high-quality research is disseminated through reputable venues will protect the institution's reputation and reinforce its commitment to generating reliable and impactful knowledge. A proactive focus on enhancing researcher literacy regarding publication ethics will consolidate its position as a leader in responsible science.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.237, contrasting favorably with the national average of 1.166. This demonstrates significant institutional resilience, as the university's control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate systemic risks prevalent at the country level. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, the national context shows a medium-risk tendency that could signal strategic "affiliation shopping" to inflate credit. Cheng Shiu University’s low score suggests that its policies or academic culture effectively discourages such practices, ensuring that affiliations reflect genuine collaboration rather than metric-driven opportunism.
With a Z-score of -0.709, the institution shows a near-total absence of risk signals, positioning it in a state of preventive isolation from the national trend, which registers a medium-risk score of 0.051. Retractions are complex, but a rate significantly above average, as seen nationally, can point to systemic failures in quality control. The university’s exceptionally low score is a strong positive indicator of a mature integrity culture, suggesting that its pre-publication review and methodological rigor are robust enough to prevent the kinds of errors or malpractice that lead to retractions elsewhere in the country.
The institution's Z-score of -0.858 is markedly lower than the country's low-risk score of -0.204. This demonstrates a healthy pattern of external validation and intellectual openness. A certain level of self-citation is normal, but the university’s very low rate indicates it effectively avoids the creation of scientific 'echo chambers' or endogamous impact inflation. This suggests that the institution's academic influence is genuinely recognized by the global community, rather than being sustained by internal dynamics, reinforcing the external credibility of its research.
The institution's Z-score of 0.237 represents a medium-risk signal and a moderate deviation from the national standard, which stands at a low-risk score of -0.165. This discrepancy highlights a specific institutional vulnerability. 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 university's scientific output is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks. This suggests an urgent need to improve information literacy among researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of -1.128, the institution exhibits an exceptionally low risk in this area, far below the national average of -0.671. This result points to a culture of clear and accountable authorship. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science', their appearance elsewhere can signal author list inflation or 'honorary' authorships that dilute responsibility. The university's very low score strongly suggests that its authorship practices are transparent and well-governed, effectively distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and questionable attributions.
The institution's Z-score of -0.736 indicates a more prudent and sustainable impact profile than the national average of -0.559. A wide positive gap in this indicator can signal a dependency on external partners for scientific prestige. The university's low negative score suggests the opposite: its scientific impact is structurally sound and driven by its own intellectual leadership. This is a sign of strong internal capacity, indicating that its excellence metrics are the result of genuine research capabilities rather than strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not lead.
The institution's low-risk Z-score of -0.873 showcases institutional resilience against a national context that displays a medium-risk score of 0.005. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the credibility of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to issues like coercive authorship or a focus on quantity over quality. The university’s ability to maintain a low rate in this indicator, despite the national trend, suggests its academic environment promotes a healthy balance and values the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of productivity metrics.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates a very low reliance on its own journals, a rate significantly healthier than the national average of -0.075. This practice reinforces the credibility and global visibility of its research. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest and academic endogamy by bypassing independent external peer review. The university's low score indicates a strong commitment to external validation, ensuring its scientific production is assessed against competitive international standards rather than being fast-tracked through internal channels.
The institution's Z-score of -0.558 is exceptionally low, indicating a robust defense against publication padding and a clear outperformance of the national average (-0.176). Massive bibliographic overlap between publications often points to 'salami slicing,' where studies are fragmented to inflate productivity. The university’s very low score suggests its researchers prioritize the publication of significant, coherent studies over artificially increasing their output. This practice strengthens the scientific record and reflects a culture that values substantive new knowledge over sheer volume.
