I-Shou University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

I-Shou University demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.337, which indicates a performance significantly better than the global average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its very low rates of Institutional Self-Citation, Output in Institutional Journals, and Redundant Output, showcasing a strong commitment to external validation and impactful research. Furthermore, the university exhibits notable resilience, maintaining low-risk levels in Multiple Affiliations, Retracted Output, and Hyperprolific Authorship, in contrast to higher-risk trends observed nationally. This solid foundation in research ethics directly supports the institution's mission of "Featured Research" and "Excellent Service." According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, this commitment to quality underpins its strong national standing in key thematic areas, including Chemistry (ranked 2nd in Taiwan), Arts and Humanities (7th), and Agricultural and Biological Sciences (14th). The primary area for strategic attention is the medium-risk gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work where it holds leadership, which could pose a long-term challenge to its goal of fostering autonomous excellence and robust "International Connections." By leveraging its strong integrity culture to build greater intellectual leadership in collaborations, I-Shou University is well-positioned to further enhance its reputation and achieve its strategic vision.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of -0.260, contrasting with the national average of 1.166. This demonstrates strong institutional resilience, as the university maintains a low-risk profile in an environment where multiple affiliations are more common. This suggests that internal governance and affiliation policies are effective in mitigating the systemic risks seen across the country. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, the university's controlled rate indicates a successful avoidance of strategic "affiliation shopping" aimed at artificially inflating institutional credit, thereby ensuring that its collaborative footprint is transparent and accurately reflects its contributions.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.268 compared to the national average of 0.051, the institution shows effective control over publication quality. This performance suggests a high degree of institutional resilience, as its low rate of retractions stands out against a medium-risk national landscape. This indicates that the university's pre-publication quality control mechanisms and supervisory processes are more robust than the national standard, successfully preventing the systemic failures or lack of methodological rigor that may be affecting its peers and safeguarding its scientific reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of -0.931 is significantly lower than the country's Z-score of -0.204. This result shows a low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals aligns with a national environment that already demonstrates good practices. This very low rate indicates a healthy reliance on external validation and integration within the global scientific community. It confirms that the institution avoids the creation of scientific "echo chambers," ensuring its academic influence is built on broad recognition rather than being artificially inflated by internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score is -0.083, while the country average is -0.165. Although both scores fall within the low-risk category, the institution's rate is slightly higher than the national standard, signaling an incipient vulnerability. This suggests that a small but noteworthy portion of its research is being published in channels that may not meet international quality or ethical standards. A high proportion of output in such journals can expose the institution to severe reputational risks, indicating a need to reinforce information literacy and due diligence among researchers to avoid channeling resources into predatory or low-impact media.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.787, which is below the national average of -0.671, the institution exhibits a prudent profile in authorship practices. This indicates that its processes are managed with more rigor than the national standard, even within a shared low-risk context. The data suggests the institution effectively promotes transparency and individual accountability in its publications, successfully distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and questionable practices like honorary or political authorship that can dilute the meaning of a contribution.

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

The institution's Z-score of 0.087 represents a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.559. This shift from a low-risk national context to a medium-risk institutional reality highlights a greater sensitivity to this specific risk factor. The wide positive gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is significantly dependent on external partners, as its overall impact is much higher than the impact of research it leads. This signals a potential sustainability risk, prompting reflection on whether its high-impact metrics stem from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -0.704 contrasts sharply with the national average of 0.005. This demonstrates clear institutional resilience, as its control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks of hyperprolificity present in the country. By maintaining a low rate, the university effectively discourages practices that prioritize quantity over quality, such as coercive authorship or data fragmentation. This focus helps protect the integrity of its scientific record and ensures that authorship is tied to meaningful intellectual contributions.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, well below the national average of -0.075, the institution shows a strong commitment to external validation. This low-profile consistency, where an already low national risk is further minimized at the institutional level, is commendable. It indicates that the university avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy by not relying on its own journals for publication. This practice ensures that its research undergoes independent external peer review, which is crucial for achieving global visibility and competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.699 is substantially lower than the national average of -0.176. This result reflects a low-profile consistency, aligning with a low-risk national environment but demonstrating even more rigorous standards. The very low rate of bibliographic overlap suggests a strong institutional culture that prioritizes the publication of complete and significant studies over the fragmentation of data into "minimal publishable units." This approach upholds the integrity of the scientific record and avoids artificially inflating productivity metrics, contributing to a healthier research ecosystem.