| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.501 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.400 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.221 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.090 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.129 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.531 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.271 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.692 | -0.245 |
Karabuk University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.412 indicating performance that is healthier than the global average. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths in maintaining very low-risk levels for Retracted Output, Hyper-Authored Output, Hyperprolific Authors, Output in Institutional Journals, and Redundant Output, showcasing strong internal governance and a culture that prioritizes quality and accountability. Areas requiring strategic attention are the medium-risk indicators for Institutional Self-Citation and Output in Discontinued Journals, which represent opportunities for refinement. These solid integrity metrics provide a foundation for the University's notable thematic strengths, particularly in Earth and Planetary Sciences, Environmental Science, and Agricultural and Biological Sciences, where it holds top-tier national rankings according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. The institution's mission to train "entrepreneurial individuals who are stakeholder-oriented... and have internalized human values" is well-supported by its low overall risk profile. However, the tendency towards self-citation could be perceived as running counter to a fully "stakeholder-oriented" approach that embraces external validation. To further enhance its standing, Karabuk University is advised to implement targeted strategies to mitigate risks associated with citation patterns and journal selection, thereby ensuring its operational integrity fully aligns with its academic excellence and societal mission.
The institution's rate of multiple affiliations (Z-score: -0.501) is in close alignment with the national average for Turkey (Z-score: -0.526), indicating a level of risk that is statistically normal for its context. This synchrony suggests that the university's collaborative patterns and researcher affiliations are managed in line with typical national practices. While multiple affiliations can sometimes be used to inflate institutional credit, the current data does not signal any abnormal activity, reflecting a standard and expected level of engagement in legitimate academic partnerships.
Karabuk University demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of retracted publications, with a Z-score of -0.400, which is significantly healthier than the already low-risk national average of -0.173. This low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with and improves upon the national standard, is a strong positive indicator. It suggests that the institution's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are robust and effective. This performance points to a mature culture of integrity and responsible supervision, minimizing the incidence of both unintentional errors and potential malpractice.
A moderate deviation from the national norm is observed in the rate of institutional self-citation, where the university scores 0.221, in contrast to the country's average of -0.119. This indicates a greater sensitivity to this risk factor compared to its peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of established research lines. However, this disproportionately higher rate can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This value warns of a potential risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than global community recognition, a point for strategic review.
The university shows a Z-score of 0.090 for output in discontinued journals, which, while categorized as a medium risk, is notably better than the national average of 0.179. This suggests a differentiated management approach, where the institution is successfully moderating a risk that appears more common across the country. Nevertheless, any significant presence in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It indicates that a portion of scientific production may be channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to reputational risks and suggesting a need for enhanced information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of -1.129, Karabuk University demonstrates a clear preventive isolation from the risk of hyper-authorship, which is a medium-level concern for Turkey as a whole (Z-score: 0.074). The institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment, maintaining a governance model independent of the country's situation in this regard. This extremely low score indicates that authorship practices are well-controlled, avoiding the risk of author list inflation and ensuring that individual accountability and transparency are preserved, distinguishing its work from practices that might include 'honorary' or political authorship.
The institution exhibits a prudent profile regarding its scientific leadership, with a Z-score of -0.531, which is considerably lower than the national average of -0.064. This indicates that the university manages its processes with more rigor than the national standard, showing a smaller gap between its overall impact and the impact of research it leads. This is a strong sign of sustainability, suggesting that its scientific prestige is built upon genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, rather than being overly dependent on external partners for impact. This reflects a structural strength, where excellence metrics result from the institution's own capabilities.
The university's Z-score of -1.271 for hyperprolific authors signals a virtually non-existent risk, performing significantly better than the already low-risk national average of -0.430. This low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with and exceeds the national standard, is commendable. It suggests a healthy institutional culture that prioritizes quality over sheer quantity, effectively avoiding the potential imbalances associated with extreme publication volumes. This indicates that authorship is likely based on meaningful intellectual contribution, steering clear of dynamics like coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation.
Karabuk University effectively isolates itself from the risks associated with publishing in its own journals, showing a very low Z-score of -0.268 compared to a medium-level risk at the national level (Z-score: 0.119). This preventive stance is a hallmark of strong governance, as the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the university mitigates potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which is crucial for enhancing global visibility and validating research through standard competitive channels rather than internal 'fast tracks'.
With a Z-score of -0.692, the institution shows a very low rate of redundant output, well below the national average of -0.245. This demonstrates low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with the national standard for this indicator. This result suggests that the practice of 'salami slicing'—dividing a single study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity—is not a concern at the university. This commitment to publishing complete and significant new knowledge, rather than prioritizing volume, strengthens the integrity of the scientific evidence produced and shows respect for the academic review system.
