National University of Kaohsiung

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The National University of Kaohsiung presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.249 that indicates a performance aligned with global standards and notable strengths in key areas of research ethics. The institution demonstrates exceptional control over critical risk factors, particularly in its near-zero rates of retracted output and publications in its own journals, showcasing a strong foundation of quality control and commitment to external validation. While most indicators reflect a low-risk or prudent management profile, often outperforming national averages, attention is warranted for the medium-risk signals observed in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and, more notably, the Rate of Redundant Output, which deviates from the national trend. These results are contextualized by the university's solid academic standing, as evidenced by its strong national rankings in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly in disciplines such as Physics and Astronomy, Economics, Econometrics and Finance, Chemistry, and Engineering. Although the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, any mission predicated on academic excellence and social responsibility would be enhanced by its strong integrity culture but challenged by practices that could prioritize publication volume over substantive scientific contribution. A strategic focus on reinforcing publication ethics and authorship guidelines will be crucial to mitigate these specific vulnerabilities and ensure that its commendable research output fully aligns with the highest standards of scientific integrity.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution registers a Z-score of 0.520, which is below the national average of 1.166. Although both the university and the country operate at a medium-risk level for this indicator, the institution demonstrates a more moderated approach. This suggests a form of differentiated management, where the university successfully mitigates some of the systemic pressures or practices common at the national level that lead to higher rates of multiple affiliations. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, this indicator signals the need to ensure that all affiliations are substantive and not merely strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” a risk the university appears to be managing more effectively than its national peers.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.559, the institution shows a virtually nonexistent rate of retractions, in stark contrast to the country's medium-risk score of 0.051. This marked difference indicates a successful preventive isolation, where the university's internal processes shield it from the risk dynamics observed in the broader national environment. A high rate of retractions can suggest systemic failures in quality control prior to publication. The university's excellent result points to the opposite: a robust culture of integrity and strong methodological rigor, where potential malpractice or unintentional errors are effectively caught and corrected, preventing the need for post-publication retractions and safeguarding its scientific reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score for self-citation is -0.300, a value that indicates a more prudent profile than the national average of -0.204. Both scores fall within the low-risk category, but the university's lower value suggests its research validation relies more heavily on the broader scientific community. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting ongoing research lines. However, the institution's rigorous approach avoids the risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers' or endogamous impact inflation. This demonstrates a healthy integration into global academic discourse, where its work is recognized and built upon by external peers rather than being validated primarily through internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.172 is statistically normal and almost identical to the national average of -0.165. This alignment indicates that the university's risk level in this area is as expected for its context and size, reflecting a shared level of awareness and practice across the country. The low-risk score for both suggests that researchers are generally successful in selecting appropriate dissemination channels. It is crucial to maintain this vigilance, as a high proportion of publications in discontinued journals can be a critical alert for reputational risk, signaling that production might be channeled through media lacking international ethical or quality standards.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.074, the institution exhibits a prudent profile, showing a significantly lower incidence of hyper-authored publications compared to the national average of -0.671. This suggests that the university manages its authorship practices with greater rigor than the national standard. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' a lower score outside these contexts is a positive sign. It indicates that the institution is effectively avoiding the risks of author list inflation, where individual accountability can be diluted, and helps ensure a clear distinction between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship practices.

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

The institution's Z-score of -0.550 is in close alignment with the national average of -0.559, indicating a state of statistical normality. This score suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is well-balanced and largely derived from research where it holds intellectual leadership. A wide positive gap can signal a sustainability risk, where an institution's impact is dependent on external partners rather than its own structural capacity. The university's balanced profile indicates that its excellence metrics are a result of genuine internal capabilities, demonstrating a sustainable and autonomous research ecosystem.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -0.102 places it in the low-risk category, showcasing institutional resilience against the medium-risk trend observed at the national level (0.005). This suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks of hyperprolificacy present in the country. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may signal imbalances between quantity and quality. The university's controlled environment successfully curbs potential risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, thereby prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over inflated metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates a very low-risk profile, indicating a near-total absence of reliance on its own journals for publication. This low-profile consistency aligns well with the national standard, which is already low-risk (-0.075), but the university's score is even stronger. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, bypassing independent peer review. The university's practice of seeking external validation for its research enhances its global visibility and confirms its commitment to competitive, international standards, avoiding the use of internal channels as potential 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution shows a Z-score of 0.687, a medium-risk value that represents a moderate deviation from the national average, which sits in the low-risk category at -0.176. This discrepancy suggests the university is more sensitive to risk factors leading to redundant publications than its national peers. This indicator alerts to the potential practice of 'salami slicing,' where a coherent study is fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This practice not only distorts the scientific evidence base but also overburdens the peer-review system. The deviation from the national norm highlights a need to review internal incentives and author guidelines to ensure that the focus remains on producing significant new knowledge rather than maximizing publication volume.