| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
4.700 | 1.166 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.727 | 0.051 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.724 | -0.204 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.221 | -0.165 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.099 | -0.671 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.714 | -0.559 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.213 | 0.005 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.075 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.617 | -0.176 |
Chang Gung University of Science and Technology presents a dual profile in scientific integrity, marked by areas of exceptional governance alongside specific, high-risk vulnerabilities. With an overall risk score of 0.288, the institution demonstrates a robust framework in several key areas, showing outstandingly low risk in the Rate of Hyperprolific Authors, Rate of Redundant Output, and the Gap between total and led impact, performing significantly better than the national average in Taiwan. These strengths are complemented by strong academic positioning, particularly in Chemistry (ranked 10th in Taiwan), Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (19th), and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (22nd), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, this positive performance is contrasted by critical alerts in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and a concerning signal in the Rate of Retracted Output. These specific risks directly challenge the institutional mission to foster "high integrity" and achieve "excellence," suggesting that while the foundational principles are strong, certain operational practices may inadvertently undermine them. To fully align its scientific conduct with its stated values, the University is advised to undertake a targeted review of its affiliation policies and pre-publication quality assurance mechanisms, ensuring that all facets of its research enterprise reflect its commitment to diligence and trustworthiness.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 4.700, a figure that represents a critical elevation of risk when compared to the national Z-score of 1.166. This indicates that the University is not only participating in but significantly amplifying a vulnerability already present in the national research system. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, this disproportionately high rate serves as a critical alert for practices like "affiliation shopping," where institutional credit may be being strategically inflated. This pattern warrants an urgent review of affiliation policies to ensure they reflect genuine scientific contribution rather than a pursuit of institutional ranking, thereby safeguarding the transparency and merit of the University's collaborative footprint.
With an institutional Z-score of 0.727, which is substantially higher than the national average of 0.051, the University shows a greater exposure to publication retractions than its peers. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly above the norm suggests that internal quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be facing systemic challenges. This elevated value moves beyond isolated incidents and points to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. It signals a need for immediate qualitative verification by management to determine if this pattern stems from recurring methodological weaknesses or other forms of malpractice that require corrective action.
The institution demonstrates a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.724, indicating more rigorous control over this practice than the national standard, which has a Z-score of -0.204. This low rate is a positive sign of scientific openness, suggesting that the University's work is validated through broad external scrutiny rather than within an insular 'echo chamber'. By avoiding the risk of endogamous impact inflation, the institution ensures its academic influence is a reflection of genuine recognition by the global community, reinforcing the external credibility of its research lines.
Displaying a Z-score of -0.221, the institution maintains a more prudent position than the national average of -0.165. This performance indicates that the University's researchers exercise a commendable level of due diligence in selecting dissemination channels for their work. This careful selection process effectively mitigates the severe reputational risks associated with publishing in journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. It reflects a strong institutional awareness and protects research resources from being wasted on predatory or low-impact practices.
The institution's Z-score of -1.099 is significantly lower than the country's Z-score of -0.671, highlighting a prudent and rigorous approach to authorship. This low incidence of hyper-authorship suggests that the University successfully distinguishes between necessary large-scale collaboration and practices of author list inflation. By maintaining this control, the institution promotes a culture of meaningful contribution, ensuring that authorship credits are transparent and that individual accountability is not diluted by honorary or political attributions.
With a Z-score of -1.714, the institution shows an exceptionally low-risk profile, far exceeding the already low-risk national standard of -0.559. This near-zero gap is a powerful indicator of scientific autonomy and sustainability. It demonstrates that the University's prestige is not dependent on external partners but is built upon strong internal capacity and intellectual leadership. This result confirms that its high-impact research is a direct product of its own structural capabilities, reflecting a mature and self-sufficient research ecosystem.
The institution's Z-score of -1.213 marks a clear preventive isolation from the risk dynamics observed at the national level, where the average Z-score is 0.005. This very low rate of hyper-prolificity is a strong indicator of a healthy balance between research quantity and quality. It suggests the institution has effective safeguards against practices such as coercive authorship or assigning credit without meaningful participation, thereby prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over the simple inflation of publication metrics.
The University's Z-score of -0.268 is well below the national average of -0.075, demonstrating a consistent commitment to external validation. This low reliance on in-house journals is a sign of institutional maturity, as it actively avoids potential conflicts of interest and the risks of academic endogamy. By favoring publication in external, independent venues, the institution ensures its research undergoes standard competitive peer review, which enhances its global visibility and credibility.
With a Z-score of -0.617, the institution demonstrates an excellent and very low-risk profile, performing with more control than the national standard (-0.176). This indicates a strong institutional culture that values the publication of significant and coherent bodies of work over artificially inflating productivity metrics. By effectively curbing the practice of 'salami slicing'—dividing a single study into multiple minimal publications—the University upholds the integrity of the scientific evidence base and respects the resources of the peer-review system.
