| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.019 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.371 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.889 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.476 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.126 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.209 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.217 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.118 | -0.245 |
Kirsehir Ahi Evran University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.372 that indicates a performance significantly healthier than the global average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of multiple affiliations, institutional self-citation, hyper-authored output, hyperprolific authors, and output in institutional journals, demonstrating strong internal governance and an alignment with international best practices. However, areas requiring strategic attention have been identified, specifically a medium-level risk in the rate of output in discontinued journals and the rate of redundant output. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's most competitive research areas nationally are Engineering, Social Sciences, Psychology, and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology. To fully realize its mission of producing high-value "information, technology and service" and upholding "national and universal values," it is crucial to address the identified integrity risks, as practices like publishing in low-quality journals or data fragmentation can undermine the credibility and societal impact of its research. By leveraging its clear strengths in governance to mitigate these specific vulnerabilities, the university can further solidify its reputation for excellence and responsible contribution to national development.
The institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of multiple affiliations with a Z-score of -1.019, which is well below the national average Z-score of -0.526. This result indicates a consistent and low-risk profile that aligns with the national standard, showing an even more conservative approach than its peers. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, disproportionately high rates can signal attempts to inflate institutional credit. The university's very low score in this area suggests a transparent and straightforward approach to academic collaboration, free from signals of strategic "affiliation shopping" and reinforcing the integrity of its institutional credit attribution.
With a Z-score of -0.371, the university's rate of retracted output is lower than the national average of -0.173. This prudent profile suggests that the institution's quality control mechanisms are managed with more rigor than the national standard. Retractions are complex events, and a rate significantly higher than average can alert to systemic failures in pre-publication review. In this case, the university's controlled and below-average score is a positive indicator of a healthy integrity culture, suggesting that its processes for ensuring methodological rigor and responsible supervision are effective in preventing the types of recurring malpractice or error that lead to retractions.
The university maintains a very low rate of institutional self-citation, with a Z-score of -0.889, significantly below the national average Z-score of -0.119. This demonstrates a consistent, low-risk behavior that is even more pronounced than the national trend. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but high rates can signal scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' The institution's minimal score indicates a strong outward-looking research focus, suggesting that its academic influence is validated by the broader global community rather than being inflated by endogamous or internal dynamics, thereby ensuring its work is subject to sufficient external scrutiny.
The institution's Z-score for output in discontinued journals is 0.476, which is notably higher than the national average of 0.179. This reveals a high exposure to this particular risk, indicating that the university is more prone to this practice than its national peers. A high proportion of publications in such journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score suggests that a portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need for enhanced information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The university shows an exceptionally low rate of hyper-authored output, with a Z-score of -1.126, which stands in stark contrast to the medium-risk national Z-score of 0.074. This finding demonstrates a preventive isolation, where the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. While extensive author lists are legitimate in some 'Big Science' fields, high rates outside these contexts can indicate author list inflation and dilute accountability. The university's very low score is a positive signal of robust governance, suggesting it effectively avoids 'honorary' or political authorship practices and maintains a high degree of transparency and individual accountability in its research collaborations.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.209 for the gap between its total and led impact, a figure that is healthier than the national average of -0.064. This prudent profile suggests that the university manages its research collaborations with more rigor than the national standard, ensuring its own intellectual leadership contributes significantly to its overall impact. A wide positive gap can signal a sustainability risk where prestige is dependent on external partners. The university's negative score indicates the opposite: its scientific prestige appears to be structural and driven by strong internal capacity, reflecting a healthy balance where its excellence metrics are the result of genuine institutional leadership.
With a Z-score of -1.217, the university's rate of hyperprolific authors is exceptionally low, far below the national average Z-score of -0.430. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals is even more pronounced than the national standard. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to risks such as coercive authorship or a focus on quantity over quality. The institution's very low score in this area is a strong indicator of a balanced and healthy research environment that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of productivity metrics.
The university has a very low rate of output in its own journals, with a Z-score of -0.268, which is a significant positive deviation from the national Z-score of 0.119, which falls in the medium-risk category. This result indicates a state of preventive isolation, where the institution avoids the risks of academic endogamy prevalent in the national system. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and limit global visibility by bypassing independent peer review. The university's minimal reliance on such channels demonstrates a commitment to external, competitive validation and global engagement, reinforcing the credibility of its research output.
The institution's rate of redundant output, or 'salami slicing,' shows a Z-score of 0.118, placing it at a medium risk level and representing a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.245. This suggests the university is more sensitive to this risk factor than its peers. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications often indicates data fragmentation, where a study is divided into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity. This Z-score serves as an alert that this practice may be occurring more frequently than in the rest of the country, a dynamic that can distort scientific evidence and prioritizes volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
