| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.074 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.371 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
2.035 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.563 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.199 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.992 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.893 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.202 | -0.245 |
Kastamonu University presents a robust and largely positive scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.220 that indicates a performance well-aligned with expected standards. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining low-risk practices, particularly in areas such as the Rate of Hyper-Authored Output, Output in Institutional Journals, and the Gap between total and led impact, where it effectively insulates itself from less favorable national trends. These areas of excellence suggest strong internal governance and a commitment to sustainable, self-driven research. The university's thematic strengths are clearly defined, with top-tier national rankings in Veterinary (21st), Chemistry (25th), Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (26th), and Earth and Planetary Sciences (27th), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, this strong foundation is contrasted by medium-risk alerts in Institutional Self-Citation, Output in Discontinued Journals, and Redundant Output. These specific vulnerabilities, which suggest a potential overemphasis on publication volume, could subtly undermine the institution's mission to "contribute to the development of the country in the light of scientific knowledge." To fully realize its vision and ensure the pride of its members is built on unimpeachable scientific contributions, it is recommended that the university focus its strategic efforts on reviewing and reinforcing policies related to citation practices, journal selection due diligence, and the promotion of impactful, consolidated research over fragmented outputs.
With an institutional Z-score of -1.074 compared to the national average of -0.526, Kastamonu University demonstrates an exceptionally low incidence of multiple affiliations. This result indicates a strong alignment with national standards for transparency in institutional crediting. The complete absence of risk signals in this area suggests that the university's affiliations are clear and well-defined, avoiding practices that could be perceived as strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping." This reflects a culture of straightforward and unambiguous representation of collaborative work.
The university maintains a prudent profile regarding retracted publications, with a Z-score of -0.371, which is notably lower than the national average of -0.173. This superior performance suggests that the institution's quality control and supervision mechanisms are more rigorous than the national standard. Retractions can sometimes signify responsible error correction, but a consistently low rate like this points toward effective pre-publication review processes that successfully prevent methodological flaws or potential malpractice from entering the scientific record, thereby safeguarding the institution's reputation and integrity culture.
A moderate deviation from the national norm is observed in this indicator, with the university registering a Z-score of 2.035 against a low-risk country average of -0.119. This suggests the institution has a greater sensitivity than its peers to practices that can lead to academic insularity. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, this elevated rate signals a potential 'echo chamber' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This pattern warrants a review, as it may lead to an endogamous inflation of impact, where the institution's perceived influence is driven more by internal dynamics than by recognition from the global scientific community.
The university shows high exposure to the risks associated with publishing in discontinued journals, with a Z-score of 0.563 that is significantly higher than the national average of 0.179. This finding constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. Such a high proportion of output in journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards indicates that researchers may be channeling work through predatory or low-quality media. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and suggests an urgent need to enhance information literacy and guidance to prevent the misallocation of research efforts and resources.
Kastamonu University demonstrates a commendable preventive isolation from national trends in hyper-authorship. The institutional Z-score of -1.199 is in the very low-risk category, starkly contrasting with the country's medium-risk average of 0.074. This indicates that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed elsewhere in its environment. The data suggests a culture of clear individual accountability and transparency in authorship, successfully distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and questionable practices like 'honorary' or inflated author lists, thereby reinforcing the integrity of its research contributions.
The institution shows a very low-risk Z-score of -0.992, which is well below the national average of -0.064, indicating excellent consistency and internal strength. This result signals that the university's scientific prestige is not dependent on external partners but is instead structural and sustainable. The minimal gap demonstrates that the impact of its research is driven by genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership. This is a strong indicator of a mature and self-sufficient research ecosystem, where excellence metrics are a direct result of the institution's own scholarly contributions.
With a Z-score of -0.893, far below the national average of -0.430, the university shows an absence of risk signals related to hyperprolific authors, a finding that aligns with a healthy national standard. This low rate indicates a sound balance between productivity and quality. It suggests that the institution fosters an environment where meaningful intellectual contribution is valued over sheer publication volume, thereby avoiding the risks associated with extreme productivity, such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, and upholding the integrity of the scientific record.
The university effectively isolates itself from the risks of academic endogamy, with a very low Z-score of -0.268 in contrast to the country's medium-risk average of 0.119. This demonstrates that the institution does not replicate the vulnerabilities present in the national system. By not depending on in-house journals, which can present conflicts of interest, the university ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review. This commitment to external validation enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, avoiding the use of internal channels as potential 'fast tracks' to inflate academic output.
A moderate deviation is evident in the rate of redundant output, where the university's Z-score of 0.202 indicates a medium risk, while the national context shows a low-risk average of -0.245. This suggests the institution is more sensitive than its peers to practices involving data fragmentation. A high value in this indicator alerts to the possibility of 'salami slicing,' where a single coherent study is divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice can distort the scientific evidence base and warrants review to ensure that the focus remains on publishing significant new knowledge rather than on maximizing publication counts.
