| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.890 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.108 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.335 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.049 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.873 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.014 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.221 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
0.616 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.538 | -0.245 |
Ankara University presents a robust and generally well-managed scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.041 indicating a balanced performance that aligns closely with expected international standards. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining low-risk levels for redundant output, multiple affiliations, and institutional self-citation, showcasing a solid foundation in ethical research practices. However, areas requiring strategic attention have been identified, particularly a medium-risk exposure to hyper-authored output, a dependency on external collaborations for impact, and a high rate of publication in its own institutional journals. These vulnerabilities contrast with the university's outstanding academic leadership, as evidenced by its top-tier national rankings in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly in Arts and Humanities (1st), Psychology (2nd), Dentistry (3rd), and Veterinary (3rd). To fully honor its mission of producing "distinctive and qualified research" and educating individuals who "examine, question, and solve problems," it is crucial to address these integrity risks. Practices that could be perceived as prioritizing metrics over substance may undermine the very principles of excellence and intellectual leadership the university champions. By refining its policies on authorship, fostering greater internal research leadership, and ensuring its publication channels meet global standards of external validation, Ankara University can further solidify its position as a beacon of scientific and academic integrity.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.890, which is significantly lower than the national average of -0.526. This demonstrates a highly controlled and transparent approach to academic affiliations, showing an absence of risk signals that is even more pronounced than the national standard. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. Ankara University's very low score indicates that its policies and researcher practices effectively prevent such issues, ensuring that institutional credit is claimed clearly and ethically, in full alignment with a culture of integrity.
With a Z-score of -0.108, the institution's performance is slightly above the national average of -0.173, although both fall within the low-risk category. This minor difference suggests an incipient vulnerability, indicating that the university shows early signals of risk that warrant review before they escalate. Retractions are complex events, and a rate significantly higher than the average can alert to a vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture or quality control mechanisms prior to publication. While the current level is not alarming, this subtle elevation compared to national peers suggests a proactive review of pre-publication checks could be beneficial to prevent any potential systemic issues from developing.
The institution's Z-score of -0.335 is notably lower than the national average of -0.119, reflecting a prudent and rigorous profile in its citation practices. This indicates that the university manages its processes with more discipline than the national standard, effectively mitigating the risks of scientific isolation. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university's low rate demonstrates a strong reliance on external validation and global community recognition rather than creating 'echo chambers' or inflating its impact through endogamous dynamics. This commitment to external scrutiny reinforces the global relevance of its research.
Ankara University demonstrates significant institutional resilience with a low-risk Z-score of -0.049, in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.179. This shows that the university's control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk prevalent in the country. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. The university's ability to act as a firewall against this national trend indicates that its researchers are well-informed and selective, protecting the institution's reputation and resources from predatory or low-quality publishing practices that do not meet international ethical standards.
The institution's Z-score of 0.873 is considerably higher than the national average of 0.074, placing both in the medium-risk category but highlighting a high exposure for the university. This suggests the institution is more prone to showing alert signals in this area than its environment. When extensive author lists appear outside of 'Big Science' contexts, it can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability and transparency. The university's elevated rate warrants a review of authorship policies to ensure a clear distinction between necessary massive collaboration and 'honorary' or political authorship practices that could compromise research integrity.
With a Z-score of 1.014, the institution shows a medium-risk profile, representing a moderate deviation from the low-risk national standard of -0.064. This indicates a greater sensitivity to this risk factor compared to its national peers. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a sustainability risk. It suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, stemming from collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This finding invites strategic reflection on how to build more structural, internal capacity to ensure that excellence metrics reflect the university's own research prowess.
The institution's Z-score of -0.221 is higher than the national average of -0.430, and while both are in the low-risk band, this difference signals an incipient vulnerability. The university shows signals in this area that, while not yet problematic, warrant review before escalating. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to risks such as coercive authorship or a prioritization of quantity over quality. The slightly elevated presence of such authors compared to the national norm suggests a need to ensure that productivity is balanced with rigorous, high-quality scientific input.
The university's Z-score of 0.616 is significantly higher than the national average of 0.119, indicating a high exposure to the risks associated with this practice despite both being in the medium-risk tier. This strong dependence on in-house journals raises potential conflicts of interest, as the institution acts as both judge and party in the publication process. This pattern warns of a risk of academic endogamy, where research might bypass independent external peer review. This could limit global visibility and suggests internal channels may be used as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts without the standard competitive validation required by the international scientific community.
With a Z-score of -0.538, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low-risk profile, far below the national average of -0.245. This reflects a low-profile consistency where the absence of risk signals is even more pronounced than the national standard. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate data fragmentation, or 'salami slicing,' a practice used to artificially inflate productivity. Ankara University's excellent score shows a clear commitment to publishing coherent, significant new knowledge, effectively avoiding practices that distort scientific evidence and prioritize volume over substance.
