| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
2.888 | 1.166 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.381 | 0.051 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.912 | -0.204 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.062 | -0.165 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.088 | -0.671 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.956 | -0.559 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
1.462 | 0.005 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.075 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.518 | -0.176 |
Tunghai University demonstrates a robust overall integrity profile, reflected in a low global risk score of 0.108. This strong foundation is built upon excellent performance in several key areas, with very low risk signals in retracted output, institutional self-citation, impact dependency, publication in institutional journals, and redundant output. However, this solid performance is contrasted by two specific vulnerabilities: a significant alert regarding the rate of multiple affiliations and a medium-level concern related to hyperprolific authors. These isolated issues require targeted attention. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university shows notable national standing in disciplines such as Physics and Astronomy, Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, and Environmental Science. While a specific institutional mission was not available for this analysis, the identified risks—particularly those related to authorship and affiliation practices—could potentially undermine universal academic values of transparency, accountability, and genuine contribution, which are central to any mission of excellence and social responsibility. By addressing these specific vulnerabilities, Tunghai University can leverage its considerable strengths in scientific integrity to further enhance its academic leadership and global reputation.
The institution presents a Z-score of 2.888, a value that significantly exceeds the national average of 1.166. This suggests that the university not only participates in the national trend towards multiple affiliations but actively amplifies it, indicating a potential systemic vulnerability. A disproportionately high rate in this area can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping.” This accentuation of a national pattern warrants a strategic review to ensure that all affiliations are academically justified and do not compromise the transparency of institutional contributions, thereby safeguarding the university's reputation.
With a Z-score of -0.381, the institution shows a near-total absence of retractions, a stark contrast to the moderate risk level observed nationally (0.051). This demonstrates a clear preventive isolation, suggesting that the university’s internal quality control mechanisms are effectively insulating it from the broader risk dynamics present in its environment. This extremely low rate indicates that pre-publication supervision and methodological rigor are robust, successfully preventing the systemic failures that can lead to a high volume of retractions and protecting the institution's reputation for scientific reliability.
The institution's Z-score of -0.912 is well below the national average of -0.204, indicating a very low level of institutional self-citation. This result demonstrates a healthy low-profile consistency, aligning with a national environment that already shows minimal risk in this area. The absence of such signals confirms that the university's research is not confined to an 'echo chamber' and is subject to broad external scrutiny. This practice reinforces the credibility of its academic influence, showing it is built on recognition by the global community rather than on internal validation dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.062, while low, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.165. This minor deviation points to an incipient vulnerability, suggesting the university shows early signals of this risk that warrant review before they escalate. While the overall rate is not alarming, it indicates that a small portion of its scientific output may be channeled through media that do not meet international quality standards. This serves as a prompt to reinforce information literacy and due diligence processes among researchers to avoid potential reputational risks associated with low-quality or 'predatory' publishing practices.
Displaying a Z-score of -1.088, the institution maintains a rate of hyper-authored publications significantly lower than the national average of -0.671. This prudent profile suggests that the university manages its authorship practices with greater rigor than the national standard. The data indicates that, outside of legitimate 'Big Science' contexts, the institution effectively avoids patterns of author list inflation. This commitment to meaningful contribution helps ensure individual accountability and transparency in its collaborative research endeavors.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.956, which is considerably lower than the national average of -0.559. This result indicates a minimal gap between the impact of its overall output and that of the research it leads, demonstrating strong low-profile consistency with a low-risk national environment. The near-absence of this risk signal suggests that the university's scientific prestige is structural and generated from within, reflecting a high degree of internal capacity and intellectual leadership rather than a dependency on external collaborations for impact.
With a Z-score of 1.462, the institution shows a significantly higher incidence of hyperprolific authors compared to the national average of 0.005. This indicates a high exposure to this particular risk, suggesting the university is more prone to these alert signals than its peers, even within a national context where this is a recognized issue. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to imbalances between quantity and quality. This metric serves as a critical alert to investigate potential risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution’s Z-score of -0.268 is well below the national average of -0.075, signifying a very low reliance on its own journals for publication. This demonstrates a healthy low-profile consistency, aligning with and even improving upon the low-risk national standard. The data confirms that the university avoids the risks of academic endogamy and potential conflicts of interest by ensuring its research undergoes independent external peer review. This practice enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its scientific output.
The institution's Z-score for redundant output is -0.518, markedly lower than the national average of -0.176. This reflects a state of low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with the secure national standard. The very low incidence of massive bibliographic overlap between publications indicates that the university's researchers are not engaging in 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting studies into minimal units to inflate productivity. This commitment to publishing significant, coherent bodies of work upholds the integrity of the scientific evidence base.
