Tamkang University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Tamkang University demonstrates a generally positive scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall score of 0.317. The institution exhibits notable strengths in maintaining low rates of institutional self-citation and multiple affiliations, suggesting robust internal governance and a commitment to external validation that effectively mitigates systemic risks prevalent at the national level. However, areas requiring strategic attention have been identified, particularly a higher-than-average rate of retracted output, a significant dependency on external partners for research impact, and a notable reliance on institutional journals for publication. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, these integrity metrics underpin a strong academic reputation, with the university ranking in the top 10 nationally in key thematic areas such as Arts and Humanities (6th), Energy (6th), Psychology (6th), and Earth and Planetary Sciences (7th). To fully align with its mission to "create a positive influence on society," it is crucial to address the identified vulnerabilities. Risks such as retractions and impact dependency could challenge the credibility and sustainability of this influence. By proactively strengthening its pre-publication quality controls and fostering greater intellectual leadership in collaborations, Tamkang University can ensure its scientific practices fully embody its core values, solidifying its role as a source of trusted knowledge and a nurturing ground for ambitious professionals.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

With a Z-score of -0.791, the institution presents a significantly lower rate of multiple affiliations compared to the national average of 1.166. This demonstrates strong institutional resilience, as the university's internal controls appear to successfully mitigate a systemic risk that is more pronounced across 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. Tamkang University’s low score indicates a prudent and well-governed approach, effectively avoiding practices like “affiliation shopping” and reinforcing the integrity of its institutional collaborations.

Rate of Retracted Output

The institution's Z-score for retracted output is 0.746, which is considerably higher than the national average of 0.051, despite both falling within the medium-risk range. This indicates a high exposure to the factors that lead to retractions, suggesting the university is more prone to these events than its national peers. Retractions are complex, but a rate significantly higher than the average alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This Z-score suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing more frequently than elsewhere, indicating a possible lack of methodological rigor or recurring malpractice that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to protect the university's reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

Tamkang University shows a Z-score of -1.015 in institutional self-citation, a value well below the national average of -0.204. This demonstrates low-profile consistency, where the clear absence of risk signals is in harmony with the low-risk standard observed nationally. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, the university's exceptionally low rate confirms that its work is validated through broad external scrutiny rather than within an internal 'echo chamber.' This result strongly suggests that the institution's academic influence is driven by genuine recognition from the global community, not by endogamous impact inflation.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score for publications in discontinued journals is -0.151, a figure that is statistically normal and almost identical to the national average of -0.165. This alignment suggests that the university's risk level in this area is as expected for its context and size. A high proportion of output in such journals would constitute a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. However, the current low-risk score indicates that the institution is not significantly exposed to the reputational damage associated with 'predatory' or low-quality publishing practices, reflecting standard levels of information literacy among its researchers.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.293, the institution's rate of hyper-authored output is slightly higher than the national average of -0.671, though both remain in the low-risk category. This minor elevation points to an incipient vulnerability, suggesting the presence of signals that warrant review before they escalate. Outside of 'Big Science' contexts where extensive author lists are legitimate, a rising Z-score can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. This signal serves as a prompt to ensure that authorship practices remain transparent and are based on meaningful contributions, distinguishing necessary collaboration from 'honorary' or political authorship.

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

The university exhibits a Z-score of 1.794 for its impact gap, a moderate deviation that is significantly higher than the national average of -0.559. This indicates that the institution is more sensitive to this risk factor than its peers, showing a much wider positive gap where its global impact is high but the impact of research it leads is comparatively low. This signals a potential sustainability risk, suggesting that its scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, not structural. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether the institution's excellence metrics result from its own internal capacity or from its positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score for hyperprolific authors is -0.526, a low-risk value that contrasts sharply with the national medium-risk average of 0.005. This indicates strong institutional resilience, as internal policies or culture appear to effectively mitigate a risk more common in the national environment. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme publication volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's low score suggests it successfully avoids the risks of coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of quantitative metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of 2.274, the university shows a significantly higher rate of publication in its own journals compared to the national average of -0.075. This moderate deviation suggests the institution has a greater sensitivity to the risks associated with this practice than its national peers. While in-house journals can be valuable for local dissemination, excessive dependence on them raises potential conflicts of interest, as the institution acts as both judge and party. This high Z-score warns of a risk of academic endogamy, where production might bypass independent external peer review, potentially limiting global visibility and using internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts without standard competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution presents a Z-score of 0.058 for redundant output, a medium-risk signal that represents a moderate deviation from the national low-risk average of -0.176. This suggests the university is more sensitive to this risk factor than its peers. Massive bibliographic overlap between simultaneous publications often indicates data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' the practice of dividing a single study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This elevated value serves as an alert that such practices may be occurring more frequently than in the surrounding environment, potentially distorting the scientific evidence base and prioritizing volume over significant new knowledge.