National Kaohsiung Normal University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

National Kaohsiung Normal University presents a dual profile in scientific integrity, with an overall risk score of 0.272. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths in governance and scientific autonomy, evidenced by very low-risk indicators in multiple affiliations, self-citation, hyper-authorship, and intellectual leadership. These positive signals suggest a robust internal culture focused on organic growth and external validation. However, this foundation is contrasted by significant and medium risks in critical areas of output quality, specifically a high rate of retracted publications, a tendency to publish in discontinued journals, and evidence of redundant publications. These vulnerabilities require strategic attention as they could undermine the university's strong reputation, particularly in its areas of thematic excellence as identified by SCImago Institutions Rankings data, including Computer Science, Mathematics, and Social Sciences. While the institutional mission was not available for this analysis, any commitment to excellence and social responsibility is directly challenged by risks that compromise the reliability and quality of its scientific contributions. The university is encouraged to leverage its clear strengths in research governance to address these specific vulnerabilities, thereby creating a fully coherent and resilient culture of scientific integrity.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.174, indicating a very low risk, which contrasts sharply with the national Z-score of 1.166, a medium-risk environment. This significant difference suggests a form of preventive isolation, where the university does not engage in the risk dynamics prevalent across the country. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The university’s very low rate demonstrates strong internal governance and a clear policy on institutional representation, effectively insulating it from the national trend towards "affiliation shopping" and ensuring that its academic credit is earned organically.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 1.507, the institution faces a significant risk in this area, a level that accentuates the medium-risk vulnerability observed at the national level (Z-score: 0.051). This finding suggests that the university is not only participating in a national trend but is amplifying its negative effects. A high Z-score in retractions is a critical alert that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. Beyond isolated incidents of honest error, a rate this far above the norm points to a potential weakness in the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of -0.937 reflects a very low-risk profile, which is consistent with and even improves upon the country's low-risk average (Z-score: -0.204). This demonstrates a healthy alignment with national standards of scientific openness. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university’s low rate indicates it successfully avoids the creation of scientific 'echo chambers' or the endogamous inflation of its impact. This practice confirms that the institution's academic influence is validated by the broader global community rather than being sustained by internal dynamics, reinforcing the external credibility of its research.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The university shows a medium-risk Z-score of 0.966, representing a moderate deviation from the low-risk national standard (Z-score: -0.165). This indicates that the institution is more sensitive than its national peers to the risk of publishing in questionable venues. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This pattern suggests that a notable portion of its scientific output is channeled through media failing to meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational damage and highlighting an urgent need for improved information literacy to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.133, the institution maintains a very low-risk profile, demonstrating stronger control than the already low-risk national average (Z-score: -0.671). This low-profile consistency indicates robust authorship policies. Outside of "Big Science" contexts, high rates of hyper-authorship can signal author list inflation, which dilutes accountability. The university's excellent result in this indicator suggests it effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship, thereby preserving transparency and individual responsibility in its scientific contributions.

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

The institution's Z-score of -1.255 is in the very low-risk category, a result that is notably better than the low-risk national benchmark (Z-score: -0.559). This demonstrates a consistent and low-risk profile, signaling strong scientific autonomy. A wide gap in this indicator often suggests that an institution's prestige is dependent on external collaborations rather than its own capacity. The university's minimal gap indicates the opposite: its scientific excellence is structural and endogenous. This is a powerful sign that its impact metrics are the result of real internal capacity and that the institution exercises genuine intellectual leadership in its research endeavors.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The university's Z-score of -1.413 places it in the very low-risk category, showcasing a preventive isolation from the medium-risk dynamics observed nationally (Z-score: 0.005). This stark contrast points to effective institutional oversight of research productivity. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may signal imbalances between quantity and quality. The institution's absence of this risk signal suggests a healthy research environment that discourages practices like coercive authorship or 'salami slicing,' prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of productivity metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates a very low-risk profile, aligning with and slightly improving upon the low-risk national context (Z-score: -0.075). This consistency reflects a 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 low rate of publication in its own journals indicates a preference for competing on the global stage, which enhances its international visibility and confirms that its research undergoes standard competitive validation rather than relying on internal 'fast tracks'.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution presents a medium-risk Z-score of 1.578, a moderate deviation that shows greater sensitivity to this risk compared to the low-risk national environment (Z-score: -0.176). This suggests a tendency towards publication practices that may prioritize quantity over substance. Massive bibliographic overlap between an author's publications often indicates data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' the practice of dividing a study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This alert suggests a need to review institutional incentives to ensure they promote the generation of significant new knowledge rather than the distortion of the scientific evidence base.