| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.285 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.793 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.268 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.284 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.187 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.117 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.940 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.014 | -0.245 |
Istanbul Okan University presents a complex integrity profile, with an overall score of 0.474 reflecting distinct areas of strength alongside several indicators that require strategic attention. The institution demonstrates exemplary performance in avoiding academic endogamy, with very low rates of institutional self-citation and publication in its own journals, suggesting a strong commitment to external validation. However, this is contrasted by a pattern of moderate risk across multiple areas, including multiple affiliations, retracted output, and publication in discontinued journals, which moderately deviate from the lower-risk national averages. These findings are particularly relevant given the university's notable thematic strengths, as identified by SCImago Institutions Rankings data, in fields such as Dentistry, Business, Management and Accounting, and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology. The identified risks, particularly those related to publication quality and impact dependency, could challenge the university's mission to foster "innovative scientists" and ensure "social responsibility." To fully align its operational practices with its strategic vision of excellence, it is recommended that the university strengthens its internal quality assurance mechanisms and promotes a research culture that prioritizes long-term impact and integrity over sheer volume.
The university's Z-score of 1.285 for the Rate of Multiple Affiliations is significantly higher than the national average of -0.526. This moderate deviation suggests the institution is more sensitive than its national peers to practices leading to multiple affiliations. While these are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the notable difference from the national standard warrants a review to ensure these patterns reflect genuine collaboration rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping."
With a Z-score of 0.793, the university's Rate of Retracted Output is considerably above the national average of -0.173. This indicates a greater institutional susceptibility to the factors that lead to retractions. A rate significantly higher than the national context alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. It suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing more frequently than in peer institutions, indicating that possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor may require immediate qualitative verification by management.
The university exhibits a Z-score of -1.268 for the Rate of Institutional Self-Citation, a figure that is substantially lower than the national average of -0.119. This low-profile consistency demonstrates an exemplary absence of risk signals that aligns with, and even surpasses, the national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this exceptionally low rate confirms the institution avoids scientific isolation or 'echo chambers'. It is a strong indicator that the university's academic influence is built on broad recognition from the global community rather than being inflated by internal dynamics.
The university's Z-score for the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals is 0.284, while the national average is 0.179. Although both operate within a medium-risk context, the university's higher score indicates a greater exposure to this risk compared to its environment. This suggests a higher propensity for its research to be channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. This heightened risk constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, exposing the institution to severe reputational damage and signaling an urgent need for information literacy to prevent resources from being wasted on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The university's Z-score for the Rate of Hyper-Authored Output is -0.187, which is notably lower than the national average of 0.074. This demonstrates institutional resilience, as control mechanisms appear to be effectively mitigating the systemic risks of authorship inflation that are more present at the national level. This positive result suggests the institution is successfully distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' or political authorship practices, thereby upholding individual accountability and transparency in its publications.
The university shows a Z-score of 1.117 for the Gap between the impact of its total output and the impact of output with its leadership, a stark contrast to the national average of -0.064. This significant deviation highlights a greater sensitivity to this risk factor, suggesting a potential dependency on external partners for impact. A wide positive gap signals a sustainability risk, where scientific prestige may be more exogenous than structural. This invites reflection on whether the institution's excellence metrics result from its own real internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
With a Z-score of 0.940, the university's Rate of Hyperprolific Authors is markedly higher than the national average of -0.430. This moderate deviation indicates that the institution is more prone to hosting authors with extreme publication volumes than its national counterparts. While high productivity can be legitimate, this signal alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality. It points 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 and warrant a review of authorship policies.
The university's Z-score for the Rate of Output in Institutional Journals is -0.268, in a national context where the average is 0.119. This demonstrates a clear preventive isolation, where the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. By avoiding dependence on its own journals, the university effectively sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, enhancing its global visibility and validating its research through standard competitive channels.
The university's Z-score for the Rate of Redundant Output is 0.014, while the national average stands at -0.245. This moderate deviation shows that the institution has a greater sensitivity to this risk factor compared to the national trend. A higher value, even if moderate, alerts to the potential practice of dividing coherent studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This behavior can distort the available scientific evidence and overburden the review system, suggesting a need to reinforce editorial policies that prioritize the publication of significant new knowledge over volume.
