Canakkale Onsekiz Mart Universitesi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Canakkale Onsekiz Mart Universitesi presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.357 that indicates a performance significantly better than the global average. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths in areas such as the low incidence of hyperprolific authors, minimal publication in institutional journals, and a near-zero rate of retractions, reflecting a solid foundation of responsible research practices. However, this strong profile is contrasted by moderate alerts in institutional self-citation and publication in discontinued journals, which require strategic attention. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's academic excellence is particularly prominent in Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (ranking 9th nationally), Environmental Science (11th), Chemistry (27th), and Veterinary (28th). These areas of excellence align with the institutional mission to be a "quality-oriented, innovative, and entrepreneurial university." Nevertheless, the identified risks of academic endogamy and potential association with low-quality journals could subtly undermine this mission by creating an internal 'echo chamber' and compromising the "quality-oriented" commitment. By proactively addressing these specific vulnerabilities, the university can further solidify its position as a national leader and ensure its research culture is fully aligned with its ambitious vision of excellence and social responsibility.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of -0.957 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.526, indicating an exemplary level of transparency in affiliation practices. This absence of risk signals is consistent with the low-risk national context, suggesting that the university's governance in this area is even more rigorous than the country's standard. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution's exceptionally low rate confirms a controlled environment free from strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” thereby ensuring clear and unambiguous attribution of its scientific output.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.390, the institution shows a near-zero incidence of retracted publications, a figure that is notably better than the already low national average of -0.173. This result demonstrates the effectiveness of the university's quality control and supervision mechanisms prior to publication. Retractions can be complex, but a rate significantly lower than the norm is a powerful indicator of a healthy integrity culture. It suggests that, far from facing systemic failures, the institution's commitment to methodological rigor successfully prevents the kind of recurring malpractice or unintentional errors that could otherwise compromise its scientific record.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score for self-citation is 0.234, a value that signals a moderate risk and deviates from the low-risk national average of -0.119. This suggests the university is more sensitive to this risk factor than its national peers, pointing to a greater tendency for internal citation. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this disproportionately higher rate warns of a potential 'echo chamber' where the institution's work may be validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This dynamic could lead to an endogamous inflation of impact, suggesting that the institution's academic influence might be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by broader recognition from the global scientific community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The university's Z-score of 0.261 for output in discontinued journals indicates a higher exposure to this risk compared to the national average of 0.179, which is also in a moderate range. This finding suggests that the institution is more prone than its peers to channeling research through publication venues that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This pattern constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence exercised in selecting dissemination channels. It exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and points to an urgent need for enhanced information literacy to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices that undermine the credibility of its scientific production.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.584, the institution maintains a low rate of hyper-authored publications, demonstrating notable resilience against a risk that is moderately present at the national level (Z-score: 0.074). This suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms are effectively filtering out a systemic national trend. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, the institution's controlled profile indicates a successful effort to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and potentially problematic practices like 'honorary' or political authorship, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency in its research.

Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership

The institution displays a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.138, indicating a healthy and sustainable balance between the impact of its collaborative research and the work it leads. This performance is more rigorous than the national standard, which also sits in a low-risk zone (Z-score: -0.064). This result suggests that the university's scientific prestige is not dependent on external partners but is built on a solid foundation of internal capacity. By avoiding a wide gap where impact is primarily driven by collaborations without intellectual leadership, the institution demonstrates that its excellence metrics are a reflection of its own structural strengths.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.138 is exceptionally low, signaling a virtual absence of hyperprolific authors and placing it in a much stronger position than the national average of -0.430. This alignment with a low-risk environment, but at a superior level of control, points to a research culture that prioritizes substance over volume. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme publication volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's excellent score in this area indicates it effectively avoids the risks of coercive authorship or 'salami slicing' that can arise when metrics are prioritized over the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates a very low reliance on its own journals, effectively isolating itself from a risk dynamic that is moderately prevalent across the country (Z-score: 0.119). This preventive stance is a significant strength, as it shows a clear commitment to external, independent validation. In-house journals can be valuable for local dissemination, but by avoiding excessive dependence on them, the university mitigates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This ensures its scientific production bypasses internal 'fast tracks' and is instead subjected to standard competitive peer review, enhancing its global visibility and credibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.632 is exceptionally low, indicating a robust defense against the practice of 'salami slicing.' This performance is significantly better than the national average of -0.245, which is already in a low-risk category. This demonstrates a culture that values the publication of coherent, significant studies over artificially inflating productivity metrics. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate data fragmentation, a practice that distorts scientific evidence. The university's strong result shows a commitment to producing significant new knowledge rather than dividing studies into minimal publishable units, thereby upholding the integrity of its research output.