| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.222 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.136 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.257 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.206 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.080 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.527 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.147 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.312 | -0.245 |
Akdeniz University demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.241 indicating performance that is healthier than the global average. The institution exhibits significant strengths in maintaining very low-risk levels for the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, Rate of Hyperprolific Authors, and Rate of Output in Institutional Journals, effectively isolating itself from national trends of concern. However, two areas require strategic attention: the Rate of Retracted Output, which deviates moderately from the national standard, and the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, which reflects a systemic pattern of risk within the country. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's academic strengths are particularly notable in Chemistry (ranked 4th in Turkey), Psychology (8th), Arts and Humanities (10th), and Social Sciences (11th). These achievements align with the institutional mission to provide "high quality academic programmes" at a "universal level." Nevertheless, the identified risks in retractions and publication channels could undermine this commitment to excellence and social responsibility. A focused effort to strengthen pre-publication quality controls and enhance information literacy regarding dissemination channels would fully align the university's operational integrity with its stated mission, solidifying its position as a leader in responsible and high-impact research.
The institution presents a Z-score of -1.222, a value indicating a complete absence of risk and positioned significantly below the national average of -0.526. This demonstrates a clear and conservative approach to institutional collaboration, fully aligning with the national standard of low-risk behavior in this area. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of researcher mobility or partnerships, the university's exceptionally low rate provides strong assurance against strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” reflecting a transparent and unambiguous policy on author attribution.
With a Z-score of 0.136, the institution shows a medium risk level that moderately deviates from the national low-risk average of -0.173. This suggests a greater sensitivity to factors leading to retractions compared to its national peers. Retractions are complex events, and while some signify responsible supervision in correcting errors, a rate significantly higher than the norm alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This discrepancy suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing more frequently than elsewhere in the country, indicating a possible need for qualitative verification by management to address any recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor.
The institution maintains a Z-score of -0.257, which is below the national average of -0.119, both within the low-risk category. This prudent profile indicates that the university manages its citation practices with more rigor than the national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's controlled rate effectively mitigates the risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers' or endogamous impact inflation. This demonstrates that the university's academic influence is validated by the global community rather than being oversized by internal dynamics, ensuring its work is subject to sufficient external scrutiny.
The institution's Z-score of 0.206 is nearly identical to the national average of 0.179, placing both in the medium-risk category. This alignment suggests the university's performance reflects a systemic pattern of risk shared at the national level. A high proportion of publications in such journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This shared vulnerability indicates that a significant portion of scientific production, both at the institutional and national levels, is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the university to reputational risks and signaling an urgent, widespread need for improved information literacy to avoid predatory practices.
With a low-risk Z-score of -0.080, the institution demonstrates notable resilience compared to the national medium-risk average of 0.074. This suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk prevalent in the country. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, the university's performance indicates it is successfully filtering out practices of author list inflation. This serves as a positive signal that the institution distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and the dilutive effects of 'honorary' or political authorship, thereby preserving individual accountability.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.527, a prudent profile that is significantly healthier than the national average of -0.064. This low gap signals a high degree of scientific autonomy and sustainability. While it is common for institutions to rely on external partners for impact, this result suggests that the university's scientific prestige is not dependent and exogenous but is instead built upon strong internal capacity. This reflects a mature research ecosystem where excellence metrics result from real intellectual leadership exercised by the institution's own researchers, rather than just strategic positioning in collaborations.
The institution's Z-score of -1.147 signifies a complete absence of risk signals, a profile that is even more conservative than the low-risk national average of -0.430. This low-profile consistency demonstrates an exemplary balance between productivity and quality. While high productivity can reflect leadership, extreme publication volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's data shows no evidence of imbalances that could point to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, reinforcing a culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of metrics.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution operates with a very low risk, demonstrating a preventive isolation from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score: 0.119). This stark contrast indicates the university does not replicate the risk of academic endogamy seen elsewhere in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the institution sidesteps potential conflicts of interest where it would act as both judge and party. This practice ensures its scientific production bypasses internal 'fast tracks' and is instead validated through independent external peer review, maximizing its global visibility and credibility.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.312, a prudent profile that is more rigorous than the national average of -0.245, though both fall within the low-risk category. This indicates the university manages its publication ethics with greater control than the national standard. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications often indicates data fragmentation to artificially inflate productivity. The institution's lower score suggests a stronger commitment to publishing coherent, significant studies rather than dividing work into minimal publishable units, thereby respecting the scientific record and the peer-review system.
