| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.804 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.353 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.129 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.571 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
2.791 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.966 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.639 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -0.245 |
Adiyaman University presents a complex profile with an overall integrity score of 0.261, indicating a moderate level of risk that requires strategic attention. The institution demonstrates notable strengths in maintaining very low rates of redundant output and publication in its own journals, suggesting robust internal controls in these specific areas. However, these strengths are counterbalanced by significant vulnerabilities, particularly a high rate of hyper-authored publications and medium-risk signals across multiple indicators including multiple affiliations, institutional self-citation, and publication in discontinued journals. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university shows competitive national positioning in thematic areas such as Arts and Humanities, Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, and Earth and Planetary Sciences. To fully align with its mission of leading societal development through "scientific research" and "publication," it is crucial to address the identified integrity risks. These vulnerabilities could undermine the credibility of its research output and contradict the core value of filtering problems "through the lens of reason and science." A proactive strategy to reinforce publication ethics and authorship policies will be essential to ensure that the university's contributions are both impactful and built on a foundation of unimpeachable integrity.
The institution's Z-score for multiple affiliations is 0.804, showing a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.526. This suggests the university is more sensitive to this risk factor than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, a disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” This divergence from the national trend warrants a review to ensure that all affiliations are transparent, justified by genuine collaboration, and do not artificially inflate the university's perceived contribution.
With a Z-score of -0.353, which is below the national average of -0.173, the institution demonstrates a prudent profile regarding retracted publications. This indicates that the university manages its quality control processes with more rigor than the national standard. Retractions are complex events, and a low rate suggests that the mechanisms for ensuring methodological soundness and ethical oversight prior to publication are functioning effectively, contributing to a culture of scientific integrity.
The university's rate of institutional self-citation (Z-score: 0.129) shows a moderate deviation when compared to the national average (Z-score: -0.119), indicating a greater tendency toward this practice than its peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of established research lines, but disproportionately high rates can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' This elevated 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 validated by broader recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution's Z-score of 0.571 for publications in discontinued journals is notably higher than the national average of 0.179, indicating a high level of exposure to this risk. This pattern suggests the university is more prone than its peers to channeling research into outlets that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. A high proportion of output in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and highlighting an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The university exhibits a Z-score of 2.791 for hyper-authored output, a figure that critically stands out against the national average of 0.074. This finding suggests that the institution significantly amplifies authorship vulnerabilities that may be present, but less pronounced, in the national system. While extensive author lists are legitimate in some 'Big Science' fields, a high Z-score outside these contexts can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This serves as a strong signal to investigate and distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and the potential for 'honorary' or political authorship practices.
With a Z-score of 0.966, the institution shows a significant gap between its overall publication impact and the impact of research where it holds a leadership role, a value that moderately deviates from the national average of -0.064. This positive gap suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be dependent on external partners rather than being structurally generated from within. This finding signals a potential sustainability risk, inviting reflection on whether the institution's excellence metrics result from its own internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The institution's Z-score for hyperprolific authors is 0.639, indicating a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.430 and showing greater sensitivity to this risk factor. While high productivity can evidence leadership, extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship, 'salami slicing,' or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The university's Z-score of -0.268 for output in its own journals is well below the national average of 0.119, demonstrating a commendable preventive isolation from this particular risk. This indicates the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics of academic endogamy observed elsewhere in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the university ensures its scientific production is subjected to independent external peer review, thereby strengthening its global visibility and avoiding potential conflicts of interest where an institution acts as both judge and party.
With a Z-score of -1.186 for redundant output, the institution maintains a very low-risk profile that is fully consistent with the national standard (Z-score: -0.245). The complete absence of risk signals in this area indicates that the practice of fragmenting studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity is not a concern. This reflects a strong institutional commitment to publishing complete, significant work, which upholds the integrity of the scientific evidence base and respects the academic review system.
