| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.624 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.277 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.985 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.104 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.489 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.242 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.304 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.063 | -0.245 |
Izmir Katip Celebi University demonstrates a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.421. This performance indicates a governance model that is not only sound but also generally surpasses the national standards in Turkey. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of institutional self-citation, hyperprolific authorship, and output in institutional journals, coupled with a minimal gap between its overall impact and the impact of research it leads. These factors point to a culture of scientific autonomy and external validation. The main area for monitoring is a moderate, though nationally common, presence in discontinued journals. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas nationally include Veterinary (ranked 31st), Earth and Planetary Sciences (33rd), Dentistry (36th), and Business, Management and Accounting (38th). Although the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, this strong integrity profile is fundamental to any academic mission centered on excellence and social responsibility. The identified low-risk environment directly supports the credibility and long-term impact of its research, reinforcing its position as a reliable contributor to knowledge. The university is advised to leverage this strong integrity foundation to enhance its national and international collaborations while implementing targeted monitoring on the few identified vulnerabilities to ensure sustained growth and reputational security.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.624, which is more favorable than the national average of -0.526. This suggests a prudent profile, where the university's management of collaborative affiliations appears more rigorous than the national standard. While multiple affiliations are a legitimate outcome of researcher mobility and partnerships, the university's controlled rate indicates effective governance that successfully avoids the risks associated with strategic attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit, ensuring that collaborations are transparent and purposeful.
With a Z-score of -0.277, the institution shows a lower rate of retractions compared to the national average of -0.173. This prudent profile suggests that its quality control mechanisms prior to publication are more rigorous than the national standard. A lower rate of retractions is a positive signal of responsible supervision and methodological soundness, indicating that the university is effectively mitigating the risk of systemic failures in its integrity culture and preventing the kind of recurring malpractice that can damage institutional reputation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.985 is exceptionally low, positioning it well below the national average of -0.119. This demonstrates a clear absence of risk signals and aligns with a national environment that already shows low risk in this area. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university's very low rate is a strong indicator that it avoids scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' This suggests that its academic influence is genuinely validated by the global community rather than being inflated by endogamous internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 0.104, which, while indicating a medium risk level, is notably better than the national average of 0.179. This reflects a differentiated management approach, where the university is successfully moderating a risk that appears to be more common across the country. A high proportion of output in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting publication channels. The university's relative control suggests an awareness of the need to avoid predatory or low-quality media, thereby protecting its resources and reputation from severe risks.
The university demonstrates significant institutional resilience with a Z-score of -0.489, a low-risk signal that contrasts sharply with the medium-risk level observed nationally (0.074). This suggests that the institution's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating systemic risks related to authorship that may be present in the wider environment. This performance indicates a healthy ability to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration in certain fields and questionable practices like author list inflation or 'honorary' authorships, thereby upholding individual accountability.
With an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.242, the institution shows a negligible gap between its overall impact and the impact of research it leads, performing significantly better than the national average (-0.064). This absence of risk signals is a powerful indicator of scientific autonomy and structural capacity. It suggests that the university's scientific prestige is built upon genuine internal capabilities and intellectual leadership, rather than being dependent on collaborations where it plays a secondary role. This reflects a sustainable and self-sufficient model for generating high-impact research.
The institution's Z-score of -1.304 is extremely low, indicating a near-total absence of hyperprolific authorship and far exceeding the low-risk national standard (-0.430). This strong signal points to a healthy institutional culture that prioritizes quality and meaningful intellectual contribution over sheer publication volume. By avoiding the dynamics associated with extreme productivity, the university mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or the dilution of scientific integrity, ensuring a sustainable and credible research environment.
The university exhibits a clear case of preventive isolation, with a very low Z-score of -0.268 in a national context showing a medium risk level (0.119). This indicates that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment regarding in-house publishing. By largely avoiding its own journals, the university demonstrates a strong commitment to independent, external peer review. This practice mitigates potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels and enhancing its global visibility.
The institution's rate of redundant output registers a Z-score of -0.063. Although this falls within the low-risk category, it is slightly less favorable than the national average of -0.245, pointing to an incipient vulnerability. This suggests that while the issue is not widespread, the university shows signals of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing' that warrant review before they escalate. Monitoring this trend is important to ensure that the institutional culture continues to prioritize the publication of significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of productivity metrics.
