| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.380 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.230 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.644 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.292 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
2.707 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.753 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.591 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.041 | -0.245 |
Istanbul Aydin University presents a complex integrity profile, with an overall score of 0.248 reflecting a foundation of significant strengths alongside specific, pronounced vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates exemplary control in key areas, such as its minimal reliance on institutional journals and low rates of retractions and self-citation, which signals a strong commitment to external validation and quality control. However, this positive baseline is contrasted by critical alerts in authorship practices, particularly an exceptionally high rate of hyper-authored output, and concerning trends in publication strategy and scientific dependency. The university's academic strengths are evident in its national standing, with SCImago Institutions Rankings placing it prominently in Turkey for Business, Management and Accounting (Top 30), Arts and Humanities (Top 50), and Dentistry (Top 50). To fully realize its mission of achieving "world class" research and becoming a "center of attraction," it is crucial to address the identified risks. Practices that prioritize publication volume over verifiable contribution could undermine the institution's long-term credibility and its goal of preparing competent individuals for a globally competitive environment. A strategic focus on reinforcing authorship transparency and publication due diligence will be essential to align its operational practices with its ambitious vision for excellence and social impact.
The institution's Z-score of 0.380 for this indicator shows a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.526, suggesting a greater sensitivity to risk factors than its peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this elevated rate warrants a closer review. It could signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," where affiliations are sought for prestige rather than substantive collaboration. Ensuring that all declared affiliations correspond to meaningful scientific engagement is key to maintaining transparency and institutional integrity.
With a Z-score of -0.230, which is below the national average of -0.173, the institution exhibits a prudent profile in this area. This suggests that its quality control and supervision processes are managed with a rigor that exceeds the national standard. Retractions are complex events, but a rate lower than the average is a positive signal, indicating that the mechanisms for ensuring methodological soundness and ethical conduct prior to publication are functioning effectively and that the institution fosters a responsible culture of scientific integrity.
The institution demonstrates a highly prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.644, significantly lower than the national average of -0.119. This indicates a strong orientation towards external validation and integration within the global scientific community. While a certain level of self-citation is natural to reflect ongoing research lines, this very low rate confirms that the institution successfully avoids the risks of scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' It suggests that the institution's academic influence is robustly validated by external scrutiny rather than being inflated by internal citation dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of 0.292 is higher than the national average of 0.179, indicating a high exposure to the risks associated with publishing in low-quality or discontinued venues. This pattern suggests the university is more prone to these alert signals than its national peers. A high proportion of output in such journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need for enhanced information literacy to prevent the channeling of scientific production through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards.
With a Z-score of 2.707, the institution's rate of hyper-authored output is exceptionally high compared to the national average of 0.074. This significant disparity points to a dynamic of risk accentuation, where the university amplifies vulnerabilities present in the national system regarding authorship. Outside of 'Big Science' contexts where large author lists are standard, such a high score can indicate systemic author list inflation, a practice that dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This serves as a critical signal to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and potentially widespread 'honorary' authorship.
The institution presents a Z-score of 1.753, a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.064, which indicates a greater sensitivity to risks related to scientific dependency. A wide positive gap, where the institution's overall impact is high but the impact of research it leads is comparatively low, signals a potential sustainability risk. This value suggests that a significant portion of its scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous. It invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from a supporting role in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership.
The institution's Z-score of 0.591 is notably higher than the national average of -0.430, representing a moderate deviation from the national trend. This suggests a greater sensitivity to the risks associated with hyperprolific authorship. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator serves as an alert 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.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution stands in sharp contrast to the national average of 0.119, demonstrating a clear state of preventive isolation. This indicates that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics related to in-house publishing that are observed elsewhere in the country. By avoiding reliance on its own journals, the institution effectively mitigates conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, thereby enhancing its global visibility and credibility.
The institution's Z-score of -0.041, while within a low-risk range, is higher than the national average of -0.245. This differential suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring. Citing previous work is a necessary part of science, but an elevated rate of bibliographic overlap can be an early sign of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' This practice of dividing a single study into multiple minimal publications to inflate output should be reviewed to ensure that the focus remains on producing significant new knowledge rather than simply increasing publication volume.
