| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.039 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.118 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.628 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.165 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.050 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.348 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.868 | -0.245 |
Adnan Menderes University demonstrates a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.369. This score indicates a performance significantly stronger than the global average, underscoring a solid commitment to responsible research practices. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of hyperprolific authorship, redundant output, and publication in institutional journals, areas where it effectively insulates itself from national trends. Further, the university shows prudent management of self-citation and maintains a strong capacity for intellectual leadership, outperforming national benchmarks. The main area for strategic attention is the rate of publication in discontinued journals, which, while mirroring a systemic national pattern, presents a medium-level risk that could impact research quality and reputation. This strong integrity foundation directly supports the university's mission to foster "ethical values" and "social responsibility." This is further evidenced by its strong academic positioning, with SCImago Institutions Rankings data highlighting national leadership in key areas such as Veterinary, Engineering, and Economics, Econometrics and Finance. To fully align with its goal of producing "high quality" and "original research," the university is encouraged to focus on enhancing information literacy and dissemination strategies, thereby transforming a solid integrity framework into a beacon of comprehensive academic excellence.
The institution presents a Z-score of -1.039, a signal of very low risk that is notably more favorable than the national average of -0.526. This result indicates that the university's affiliation practices are exceptionally clear and well-defined, aligning with a national context that already maintains a low-risk profile. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the university’s extremely low rate suggests a robust and transparent system for declaring institutional credit, effectively avoiding any ambiguity or strategic inflation of its contributions.
With a Z-score of -0.118, the institution's rate of retractions is low and falls within a normal range, though it is slightly less favorable than the national average of -0.173. This minor deviation suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants observation. Retractions are complex events, and while a low rate is positive, this value indicates that the institution's pre-publication quality control mechanisms, while generally effective, may have minor inconsistencies compared to the national standard. It serves as a prompt for a proactive review to ensure that any potential for systemic error or lack of methodological rigor is addressed before it escalates.
The university demonstrates a prudent and healthy citation profile with a Z-score of -0.628, which is significantly lower and more positive than the national average of -0.119. This indicates that the institution manages its citation practices with greater rigor than its national peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university’s low rate strongly suggests its research is validated by the broader international community, avoiding the "echo chambers" that can arise from excessive self-reference. This performance points to a high degree of scientific integration and an academic influence built on external recognition rather than internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of 0.165 places it in a medium-risk category, a level that is statistically equivalent to the national average of 0.179. This alignment suggests the university is facing a systemic challenge shared across the country's research ecosystem. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This pattern indicates that a portion of the university's scientific output is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to reputational risks and signaling an urgent need to improve information literacy among its researchers to prevent the misallocation of resources to predatory or low-impact venues.
With a low-risk Z-score of -0.050, the university demonstrates institutional resilience by effectively mitigating a risk that is more pronounced at the national level (Z-score of 0.074). This suggests that the institution's internal governance and authorship policies act as a successful filter against the country's systemic tendencies toward author list inflation. While extensive author lists are legitimate in "Big Science," the university’s controlled rate indicates a culture that values transparency and individual accountability, successfully distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and questionable honorary authorship practices.
The institution exhibits a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.348, indicating a much smaller and healthier gap than the national average of -0.064. This strong performance shows that the university's scientific prestige is structurally sound and not overly dependent on external partners for impact. A wide gap can signal that excellence is derived from collaborations where the institution does not exercise intellectual leadership. In contrast, this result suggests that Adnan Menderes University possesses a robust internal capacity for generating high-impact, self-led research, reflecting a sustainable and endogenous model of scientific excellence.
The university's Z-score of -1.413 is in the very low-risk category, a result that is significantly better than the already low-risk national average of -0.430. This near-absence of risk signals is consistent with a healthy national environment and points to an institutional culture that prioritizes substance over sheer volume. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may signal imbalances between quantity and quality. The university's excellent performance in this area suggests a strong defense against practices like coercive authorship or metric-driven publication strategies, reinforcing the integrity of its scientific record.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.268, a very low-risk value that represents a clear and positive divergence from the medium-risk trend observed nationally (Z-score of 0.119). This demonstrates a form of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics prevalent in its environment. By avoiding over-reliance on its own journals, the institution effectively sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This commitment to publishing in external, independent venues ensures that its scientific production undergoes standard competitive validation, enhancing its global visibility and credibility.
With a Z-score of -0.868, the institution registers a very low risk of redundant publications, performing notably better than the national average of -0.245. This result aligns with a national context that is already low-risk, but the university's even lower score indicates an exemplary commitment to producing substantive work. A high rate of bibliographic overlap often points to 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a single study to inflate publication counts. The university’s strong performance here suggests a research culture that values the generation of significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of productivity metrics, thereby contributing responsibly to the scientific record.
