Feng Chia University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Feng Chia University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.199 indicating performance that is slightly better than the global average. The institution demonstrates significant strengths and a culture of responsible research in key areas, particularly showing a very low rate of retracted output, minimal hyper-authorship, and negligible use of institutional journals for publication, which signals strong internal quality controls. However, this solid foundation is contrasted by medium-risk signals in indicators related to publication strategies, including the rate of hyperprolific authors, output in discontinued journals, and redundant publications. These vulnerabilities, while not critical, require strategic attention to ensure they do not undermine the university's strong academic standing, particularly in its highest-ranking fields as per SCImago Institutions Rankings data, such as Economics, Econometrics and Finance (Top 10 in Taiwan), Engineering, and Mathematics. Although the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, these identified risks could potentially conflict with the universal academic values of excellence and social responsibility, as they may prioritize publication volume over substantive scientific contribution. By proactively addressing these specific areas of exposure, Feng Chia University can further enhance its scientific credibility and ensure its operational practices fully align with its demonstrated academic strengths.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution registers a Z-score of 0.101, a value significantly lower than the national average of 1.166. This suggests a differentiated management approach, where the university effectively moderates a risk that is more prevalent within the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The university's controlled rate indicates a lower exposure to the risk of “affiliation shopping,” reflecting a clear and well-managed policy regarding how researchers declare their institutional ties.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.606, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of retractions, positioning it as an area of preventive isolation compared to the national context, which shows a medium-risk score of 0.051. This result indicates that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. A rate significantly lower than the average is a strong positive signal, suggesting that the quality control and supervision mechanisms prior to publication are robust and effective. This performance underscores a mature integrity culture that successfully prevents the systemic failures or recurring malpractice that can lead to a high volume of retractions.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university's Z-score for this indicator is -0.208, which is in close alignment with the national average of -0.204. This reflects a state of statistical normality, where the institution's risk level is as expected for its context. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of established research lines. The observed rate suggests that the university's practices are in sync with national standards, avoiding the disproportionately high levels that can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution shows a Z-score of 0.067, indicating a medium-risk level that represents a moderate deviation from the national standard, which sits at a low-risk score of -0.165. This suggests the center has a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. A high proportion of publications in such journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This score indicates that a portion of the university's scientific production may be channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, creating reputational risks and suggesting a need to enhance information literacy among researchers to avoid predatory or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.147, the institution displays a very low incidence of hyper-authored publications, a figure that is even more conservative than the country's already low-risk average of -0.671. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals is even more pronounced than the national standard. This is a positive finding, as outside of "Big Science" contexts, high rates can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. The university's performance suggests a strong culture of assigning authorship based on meaningful contribution, avoiding practices like 'honorary' or political authorship.

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

The university's Z-score of -0.520 is nearly identical to the national average of -0.559, indicating statistical normality. This means the institution's risk profile in this area is as expected for its context. A low, negative gap is a positive sign, suggesting that the impact of research led by the institution is strong and not overly dependent on external partners. This reflects a healthy balance, where scientific prestige appears to be generated from real internal capacity and intellectual leadership, rather than being primarily derived from collaborations where the institution plays a secondary role.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of 0.783 places it in the medium-risk category and reveals a high exposure to this risk, especially when compared to the national average of 0.005. Although both are in the same risk band, the university is significantly more prone to this alert signal than its environment. Extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of human capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution has a very low rate of publication in its own journals, well below the country's low-risk average of -0.075. This low-profile consistency shows an absence of risk signals that aligns with, and improves upon, the national standard. This is a sign of good practice, as excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and signal academic endogamy. The university's low score indicates that its scientific production is overwhelmingly subjected to independent external peer review, enhancing its global visibility and avoiding the use of internal channels as potential 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of 0.029 (medium risk) marks a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.176 (low risk), indicating that the university shows greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. Massive and recurring bibliographic overlap between simultaneous publications often indicates data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' The university's score serves as an alert to the potential practice of dividing coherent studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This behavior can distort the scientific evidence base and overburden the peer review system, prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.