| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.722 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.437 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.239 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.135 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
2.556 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.612 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.659 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.761 | -0.245 |
Erzincan Binali Yildirim University presents a complex integrity profile, with an overall risk score of 0.189 that reflects a combination of exceptional strengths and significant vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates robust internal quality controls, evidenced by very low risk in retracted output, redundant publications, and output in its own journals. These strengths suggest a solid foundation in procedural integrity and a commitment to external validation. However, this is contrasted by critical alerts in authorship and collaboration practices, most notably a significant risk in hyper-authored output and medium-level risks in multiple affiliations, institutional self-citation, hyperprolific authors, and a dependency on external partners for research impact. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university shows notable national standing in key scientific fields, including Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (ranked 12th in Turkey), Chemistry (13th), and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (18th). To fully align with its mission of producing science based on "reason" and contributing to "sustainable development," it is crucial to address the identified risks. Practices that inflate authorship or rely on external leadership could undermine the credibility of its scientific contributions and the training of "highly qualified individuals." By focusing on strengthening authorship policies and fostering genuine internal research leadership, the university can leverage its foundational integrity to ensure its thematic strengths translate into sustainable, reputable, and mission-aligned academic excellence.
The University's Z-score for the Rate of Multiple Affiliations is 0.722, while the national average is -0.526. This indicates a moderate deviation from the national norm, suggesting the institution is more sensitive to risk factors in this area than its peers across the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the university's disproportionately higher rate could signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping." This pattern warrants a review to ensure that all affiliations are substantive and reflect genuine collaborative contributions rather than a mechanism for metric enhancement.
The University's Z-score for the Rate of Retracted Output is -0.437, compared to a national average of -0.173. This excellent result demonstrates a low-profile consistency where the absence of risk signals is in harmony with the low-risk national standard. Retractions can be complex, but such a low rate strongly suggests that the institution's quality control and supervision mechanisms prior to publication are functioning effectively. This performance points to a healthy integrity culture and a commitment to methodological rigor that prevents the systemic failures often associated with higher retraction rates.
The University's Z-score for the Rate of Institutional Self-Citation is 1.239, in contrast to the national average of -0.119. This value represents a moderate deviation, indicating that the institution shows a greater tendency towards this risk than is typical for its national context. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this disproportionately high rate can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. It warns of a potential for endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than recognition from the global community.
The University's Z-score for the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals is 0.135, which is nearly identical to the national average of 0.179. This alignment suggests the institution's performance reflects a systemic pattern of shared practices or challenges at a national level. A high proportion of publications in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score indicates that a portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to reputational risks and suggesting a shared need for improved information literacy to avoid predatory or low-quality practices.
The University's Z-score for the Rate of Hyper-Authored Output is 2.556, a figure that stands in stark contrast to the national average of 0.074. This result indicates a significant risk accentuation, where the institution amplifies vulnerabilities already present in the national system. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' their prevalence outside these contexts can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This serves as an urgent signal to investigate whether these patterns stem from necessary massive collaborations or from 'honorary' authorship practices that compromise research integrity.
The University's Z-score for the gap between its total and led impact is 0.612, which is notably higher than the national average of -0.064. This moderate deviation suggests the institution is more sensitive than its national peers to a dependency on external collaboration for its citation impact. A wide positive gap, where global impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a risk to sustainability. This value suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be more dependent and exogenous than structural, inviting reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership.
The University's Z-score for the Rate of Hyperprolific Authors is 0.659, marking a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.430. This suggests the institution is more exposed to this risk factor than is typical in its national environment. While high productivity can reflect 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 or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The University's Z-score for the Rate of Output in Institutional Journals is -0.268, a very low value, especially when compared to the national average of 0.119. This demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, where the institution successfully avoids replicating risk dynamics observed elsewhere in its environment. By minimizing its reliance on in-house journals, the university mitigates potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice ensures its scientific production is validated through independent external peer review, thereby enhancing its global visibility and demonstrating a commitment to competitive, merit-based dissemination over internal 'fast tracks'.
The University's Z-score for the Rate of Redundant Output is -0.761, positioning it favorably against the national average of -0.245. This result shows low-profile consistency, as the institution's clear absence of risk signals aligns with a low-risk national environment. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications often indicates 'salami slicing,' where studies are fragmented to inflate productivity. The university's very low score in this area is a positive indicator that its research culture prioritizes the generation of significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of publication volume, thereby respecting the scientific record and the peer-review system.
