| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.397 | 1.166 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.033 | 0.051 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.837 | -0.204 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.124 | -0.165 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.353 | -0.671 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.465 | -0.559 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.077 | 0.005 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.075 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.679 | -0.176 |
Da-Yeh University presents a robust and well-balanced scientific integrity profile, reflected in its overall score of -0.147. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining very low-risk levels across a majority of indicators, particularly in areas related to authorship practices, citation patterns, and publication channels, showcasing a solid foundation of responsible research conduct. Key areas of excellence include an exceptionally low rate of institutional self-citation and hyperprolific authorship. However, strategic attention is required for two indicators showing medium-risk signals: the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, which represent the primary vulnerabilities in an otherwise sound profile. These findings are contextualized by the university's strong academic positioning, especially its Top 5 national ranking in Agricultural and Biological Sciences according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, complemented by solid performance in fields like Chemistry and Biochemistry. While the institutional mission was not specified, any commitment to academic excellence and social responsibility is fundamentally supported by scientific integrity. The identified risks, though contained, could undermine this commitment by suggesting a focus on metric inflation or a lack of due diligence. The university is therefore encouraged to leverage its considerable strengths to address these specific vulnerabilities, thereby consolidating its position as a leader in both research impact and ethical practice.
The institution presents a Z-score of 1.397, which is elevated compared to the national average of 1.166. This indicates that the university is more exposed to the risks associated with this practice than its peers within the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the university's higher rate suggests a greater susceptibility to their strategic use for inflating institutional credit. This pattern warrants a review to ensure that all affiliations are transparent and reflect substantive collaboration rather than "affiliation shopping," thereby safeguarding the institution's academic reputation.
With a Z-score of -0.033, the institution demonstrates a healthier profile than the national context, which registers a medium-risk score of 0.051. This suggests the presence of effective institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to be successfully mitigating systemic risks that are more prevalent across the country. Retractions can be complex, but the university's low rate indicates that its quality control and supervision processes are functioning well, preventing the kind of systemic failures or recurring malpractice that a higher rate might signal. This performance points to a strong culture of integrity and methodological rigor prior to publication.
The institution's Z-score of -0.837 is exceptionally low, positioning it well below the national average of -0.204. This result demonstrates a consistent and robust alignment with best practices in a national environment that already shows low risk. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university's minimal rate confirms an absence of scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' This indicates that the institution's academic influence is validated by the broader global community rather than being inflated by internal dynamics, reflecting a high degree of external scrutiny and integration.
The university's Z-score of 0.124 marks a moderate deviation from the national standard of -0.165, where this risk is less common. This divergence suggests the institution has a greater sensitivity to this particular risk factor than its peers. Publishing in discontinued journals, even sporadically, can be a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. The university's score indicates that a portion of its scientific output is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, creating reputational risks and highlighting a need to reinforce information literacy among its researchers to avoid predatory or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of -1.353, the institution maintains an exceptionally low-risk profile, far below the national average of -0.671. This demonstrates a consistent commitment to responsible authorship that aligns with, and even exceeds, the national standard. Outside of "Big Science" contexts, high rates of hyper-authorship can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes accountability. The university's very low score signals a healthy research environment where authorship is likely tied to significant contributions, avoiding practices like 'honorary' authorship and ensuring transparency.
The institution's Z-score of -0.465 is slightly higher than the national average of -0.559, signaling an incipient vulnerability that warrants review. While the overall risk level is low for both the university and the country, this subtle difference suggests the institution's scientific prestige may be slightly more dependent on external collaborations where it does not hold intellectual leadership. A wide gap can signal a sustainability risk, and this early signal invites a strategic reflection on strengthening internal research capacity to ensure that its high-impact output is structurally driven from within.
The institution shows a Z-score of -1.077, indicating a complete absence of risk in an area where the national environment shows a medium-risk tendency (0.005). This demonstrates a form of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed elsewhere in the country. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's excellent result suggests an institutional culture that effectively balances productivity with quality, successfully avoiding the risks of coercive authorship or metric-chasing that can compromise the integrity of the scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a very low reliance on its own journals, performing better than the national average of -0.075. This low-profile consistency reflects a strong commitment to external validation. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest and academic endogamy by bypassing independent peer review. The university's minimal use of such channels demonstrates a preference for global visibility and competitive validation, reinforcing the credibility and reach of its research output.
The institution's Z-score of -0.679 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.176, indicating a very low-risk profile that is consistent with the national environment but demonstrates even greater control. This result suggests a strong institutional focus on producing substantive and coherent studies. A high rate of redundant output often points to 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a study into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity. The university's very low score indicates that its researchers prioritize the generation of significant new knowledge over the volume of publications.
