University of Taipei

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The University of Taipei demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.441 indicating a performance that is healthier than the global average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of retracted output, institutional self-citation, and hyperprolific authorship, suggesting strong quality control and a culture that prioritizes substance over volume. However, a notable vulnerability is observed in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, which exceeds the national average and warrants strategic review. These integrity metrics provide a solid foundation for the university's thematic leadership, particularly in its nationally prominent areas such as Environmental Science, Earth and Planetary Sciences, Psychology, and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, as reflected in the SCImago Institutions Rankings data. This commitment to sound scientific practice is essential to fulfilling its mission of developing contributors to global wellbeing, as research integrity is the bedrock of trustworthy knowledge. By addressing the identified area of high exposure, the University can further enhance its reputation and ensure its contributions are both impactful and unimpeachable.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of 1.485 is higher than the national average of 1.166, placing it in a position of high exposure to this particular risk. This indicates that the University is more prone than its national peers to engage in practices leading to multiple affiliations. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping”. Given that this practice is already a shared pattern at the national level, the University's heightened rate suggests a need for a careful review of its affiliation policies to ensure they promote genuine collaboration rather than metric inflation.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.616, the University of Taipei demonstrates a state of preventive isolation from the risks associated with retracted publications, which are more prevalent at the national level (Z-score: 0.051). This strong negative signal suggests that the institution's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are highly effective and do not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. Retractions can be complex, but a rate significantly lower than the average is a powerful indicator of a healthy integrity culture, robust methodological rigor, and responsible supervision that prevents systemic failures before they occur.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The University's Z-score of -0.943 is exceptionally low, reinforcing a profile of low-risk consistency when compared to the country's already low score of -0.204. This absence of risk signals aligns with the national standard for open, externally validated research. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the University's minimal rate demonstrates that it effectively avoids scientific isolation or 'echo chambers'. This confirms that the institution's academic influence is built on recognition from the global community rather than being inflated by endogamous internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution exhibits a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.321, which is more favorable than the national average of -0.165. This indicates that the University manages its publication processes with more rigor than the national standard, showing strong due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. A low proportion of output in such journals is critical, as it protects the institution from severe reputational risks and demonstrates a commitment to information literacy, ensuring resources are not wasted on 'predatory' or low-quality practices that do not meet international ethical standards.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.047, significantly lower than the national average of -0.671, the University demonstrates a prudent and rigorous approach to authorship. This low incidence of hyper-authorship suggests a culture that values transparency and individual accountability. By avoiding patterns that could indicate author list inflation, the institution reinforces the importance of meaningful contributions and effectively mitigates the risk of 'honorary' or political authorship practices, ensuring that credit is assigned appropriately.

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

The University's Z-score of -0.281, while in the low-risk category, points to an incipient vulnerability as it is less favorable than the national average of -0.559. This signal warrants review before it escalates. A score trending away from a strong negative value suggests that the institution's scientific prestige may be somewhat dependent on external collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in partnerships, highlighting the importance of fostering homegrown, sustainable impact.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413 signifies a state of preventive isolation, as it shows a complete absence of risk signals in an area where they are present at the national level (Z-score: 0.005). The University does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. This near-total absence of extreme individual publication volumes is a strong indicator of a healthy balance between quantity and quality. It suggests the institution successfully avoids dynamics such as coercive authorship or 'salami slicing' that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the University demonstrates low-profile consistency, aligning with a national environment where this risk is also low (Z-score: -0.075). The institution's minimal reliance on its own journals is a positive sign, as excessive dependence can raise conflicts of interest. This practice confirms a commitment to independent external peer review, which limits the risk of academic endogamy and ensures that scientific production is not funneled through internal 'fast tracks'. By seeking validation from the global community, the University enhances its visibility and credibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

The University's Z-score of -1.186 is exceptionally low and demonstrates strong alignment with a national environment that also shows low risk in this area (Z-score: -0.176). This near-absence of redundant output indicates that the institution's researchers are not engaging in data fragmentation or 'salami slicing' to artificially inflate productivity. This practice upholds the integrity of the scientific record by prioritizing the publication of coherent, significant new knowledge over sheer volume, thereby respecting the academic review system and contributing meaningfully to the evidence base.