| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.186 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.306 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.282 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.122 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.580 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.207 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.748 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.007 | -0.245 |
Abant Izzet Baysal University presents an exemplary profile of scientific integrity, with an overall risk score of -0.490 that indicates robust institutional governance and a commitment to high-quality research practices. The institution consistently outperforms national averages across all monitored indicators, demonstrating particular strength in maintaining very low rates of multiple affiliations, redundant output, and publication in its own journals. This strong foundation of ethical conduct directly supports the university's mission to educate qualified, analytical professionals and contribute meaningfully to regional and technological development. The data from the SCImago Institutions Rankings highlights the university's competitive positioning in key thematic areas, including top national rankings in Earth and Planetary Sciences, Psychology, Dentistry, and Social Sciences. By embedding such high standards of integrity, the university ensures that its contributions in these fields are not only impactful but also credible and sustainable, fully aligning its operational reality with its stated values of excellence and continuous improvement. Maintaining this low-risk profile is a strategic asset that enhances institutional reputation and guarantees the long-term value of its academic and scientific endeavors.
The institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of multiple affiliations with a Z-score of -1.186, significantly below the national average of -0.526. This result indicates a highly consistent and transparent approach to academic collaboration that aligns with the low-risk standard in the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The university's very low score confirms that its collaborative practices are organic and based on substantive partnerships rather than "affiliation shopping," reinforcing a culture of clear and honest attribution.
With a Z-score of -0.306, the university maintains a lower rate of retracted publications than the national average (Z-score: -0.173). This prudent profile suggests that the institution's quality control and supervision mechanisms are managed with greater rigor than the national standard. Retractions are complex events, and while some reflect honest corrections, a rate higher than average can alert to vulnerabilities in an institution's integrity culture. The university's favorable score indicates that its pre-publication review processes are effective in upholding methodological rigor and preventing the systemic issues that can lead to retractions.
The university exhibits a prudent approach to self-citation, with a Z-score of -0.282 that is notably lower than the national benchmark of -0.119. This demonstrates that the institution's research is validated by the broader scientific community, avoiding the risks of academic isolation. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, the university’s controlled rate indicates it successfully avoids the "echo chambers" that can arise from excessive self-validation, ensuring its academic influence is a result of external recognition rather than being inflated by internal dynamics.
The institution displays significant resilience, maintaining a low rate of publication in discontinued journals (Z-score: -0.122) in contrast to the medium-risk national context (Z-score: 0.179). This suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms effectively mitigate a systemic risk prevalent in the country. A high proportion of output in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. By successfully navigating away from these predatory or low-quality outlets, the university safeguards its reputation and ensures its research resources are invested in credible, high-impact platforms.
The university effectively manages authorship practices, showing a low rate of hyper-authored output (Z-score: -0.580) while the national average trends towards a medium-risk level (Z-score: 0.074). This indicates institutional resilience and suggests that policies are in place to ensure authorship reflects genuine contribution. Outside of "Big Science" contexts, high rates of hyper-authorship can signal author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. The university's low score points to a culture that prioritizes transparency and meaningful collaboration over the artificial inflation of participation metrics.
The institution shows a very low Z-score of -1.207 in the gap between its overall and led-publication impact, a figure that is significantly healthier than the national average of -0.064. This result reflects a strong alignment with national standards and indicates a sustainable and autonomous research capacity. A wide positive gap can signal that an institution's prestige is overly dependent on external partners where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. The university's minimal gap demonstrates that its scientific excellence is structural and generated from within, reflecting true internal capacity rather than a dependency on external collaborations.
With a Z-score of -0.748, the university shows a significantly lower incidence of hyperprolific authors compared to the national average of -0.430. This prudent profile suggests that the institution fosters a research environment that prioritizes quality and meaningful contribution over sheer volume. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme publication volumes often challenge the limits of substantive intellectual input and can signal risks like coercive authorship or data fragmentation. The university's low score indicates a healthy balance, promoting rigorous and impactful science over the pursuit of inflated productivity metrics.
The university demonstrates a clear preventive isolation from national trends, with a very low rate of publication in its own journals (Z-score: -0.268) compared to the medium-risk level observed across the country (Z-score: 0.119). This shows that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics common in its environment. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and signal academic endogamy, bypassing independent external peer review. The university's commitment to publishing in external, competitive venues reinforces its dedication to global visibility and standard validation processes.
The institution maintains an exceptionally low rate of redundant output, with a Z-score of -1.007 that is well below the national average of -0.245. This strong performance aligns with the low-risk national context and signals a commitment to producing novel, substantive research. High rates of bibliographic overlap can indicate "salami slicing," where studies are fragmented to artificially inflate publication counts. The university's very low score demonstrates a culture that values the generation of significant new knowledge over the distortion of the scientific record for metric-driven gains.
