| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.902 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.428 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.854 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.013 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.513 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.509 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.087 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.026 | -0.245 |
Recep Tayyip Erdogan University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, marked by an overall low-risk score of -0.308. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths in areas critical to research ethics, with virtually no risk signals in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, Retracted Output, Hyperprolific Authors, and Output in Institutional Journals. These results indicate strong internal governance and a culture that prioritizes quality and transparency. However, a moderate level of risk is observed in Institutional Self-Citation, the Gap between total and led impact, and Redundant Output, suggesting these areas require strategic attention to prevent potential vulnerabilities from escalating. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's scientific output is particularly strong nationally in thematic areas such as Veterinary (ranked 11th), Engineering (25th), Dentistry (49th), and Earth and Planetary Sciences (49th). The identified risks, particularly those related to self-citation and redundant publication, could challenge the institution's mission to conduct "research and social activities in global standards." Addressing these vulnerabilities is crucial to ensure that its contributions to "scientific development" are perceived as both high-quality and externally validated. By leveraging its solid integrity foundation to refine policies in these specific areas, the university can fully align its practices with its mission of excellence and social responsibility.
The institution's Z-score of -0.902 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.526, indicating a very low incidence of this risk. This result demonstrates a healthy and consistent alignment with the low-risk national context. The absence of signals in this area suggests that the university's affiliations are transparent and not being used strategically to inflate institutional credit through practices like “affiliation shopping,” reflecting a clear and straightforward representation of its collaborative network.
With a Z-score of -0.428, well below the national average of -0.173, the institution shows a near-total absence of retracted publications. This performance is consistent with the low-risk national standard and points to effective quality control mechanisms prior to publication. The data suggests that the university's integrity culture is robust, successfully preventing the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that can lead to systemic failures and subsequent retractions.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 0.854, which represents a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.119. This indicates a greater sensitivity to this risk factor compared to its national peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this disproportionately higher rate signals a potential for scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where the institution's work may not be receiving sufficient external scrutiny, creating a risk that its academic influence is being inflated by internal dynamics rather than recognition from the global community.
The institution's Z-score of 0.013, while in the medium-risk band, is considerably better than the national average of 0.179. This suggests a differentiated management approach, where the university successfully moderates a risk that is more common across the country. This performance indicates that the institution exercises greater due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, effectively avoiding many of the predatory or low-quality journals that do not meet international ethical standards and thus protecting its reputational integrity.
With a Z-score of -0.513, the institution shows a low risk level, contrasting with the medium-risk national average of 0.074. This demonstrates institutional resilience, as internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate a systemic risk present in the country. This result suggests that the university effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and questionable practices like 'honorary' or political authorship, thereby preventing the dilution of individual accountability and transparency in its publications.
The institution's Z-score of 0.509 marks a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.064. This wider-than-average positive gap suggests a greater sensitivity to this risk, indicating that the university's overall impact may be significantly dependent on collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This signals a potential sustainability risk, where scientific prestige could be perceived as exogenous rather than a result of its own structural capacity, inviting reflection on its role within research partnerships.
The institution's Z-score of -1.087 is exceptionally low, far below the already low national average of -0.430. This near-complete absence of risk signals is consistent with a healthy national environment and points to a well-balanced academic culture. The data strongly suggests that the university fosters an environment that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over sheer volume, avoiding the potential imbalances between quantity and quality that can arise from coercive authorship or other metric-driven pressures.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a very low risk, in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.119. This demonstrates a form of preventive isolation, where the university consciously avoids replicating a risk dynamic prevalent in its environment. By not relying on in-house journals, the institution reinforces its commitment to independent, external peer review, thus mitigating the conflicts of interest and academic endogamy that can limit global visibility and bypass standard competitive validation.
The institution's Z-score of 0.026 indicates a moderate risk level, deviating from the low-risk national average of -0.245. This suggests the university is more sensitive to this risk factor than its peers. The higher value serves as an alert for the potential practice of 'salami slicing,' where a single study may be fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice can distort the scientific evidence base and warrants a review to ensure that all publications represent significant and coherent contributions to knowledge.
