| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.883 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.540 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.008 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.022 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.217 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.101 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.588 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.309 | -0.245 |
Manisa Celal Bayar University presents a scientific integrity profile with a low overall risk score of 0.015, indicating a solid foundation but with specific areas requiring strategic attention. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining very low rates of multiple affiliations and output in its own journals, alongside prudent management of hyperprolific authorship and publication in discontinued journals. However, a pattern of medium-level risk emerges across several key indicators, including retracted output, institutional self-citation, hyper-authored output, and redundant publications. These vulnerabilities warrant review as they could undermine the credibility of the university's research, particularly in its areas of national excellence. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university holds a prominent position in Turkey within Environmental Science (ranked 2nd), Energy (24th), Computer Science (27th), and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (27th). To fully align with its mission of raising "innovative, enterprising individuals" and delivering societal benefits, it is crucial to address these integrity risks. Practices that compromise quality or transparency contradict the values of excellence and public service inherent in this mission. By proactively strengthening its quality control and authorship policies, the university can safeguard its reputation, enhance the impact of its leading research areas, and ensure its contributions are both innovative and unimpeachably robust.
The institution's Z-score of -0.883 reflects a very low-risk profile that is even more conservative than the low-risk national average of -0.526. This demonstrates a consistent and transparent approach to author affiliations, where the absence of risk signals aligns with the national standard. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the university's data shows no signs of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” reinforcing a culture of clear and honest attribution.
The institution's Z-score of 0.540 indicates a medium risk level for retracted publications, which moderately deviates from the low-risk national average of -0.173. This suggests the university is more exposed to this risk factor than its peers. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the norm alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This Z-score suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing more often than expected, indicating a possible recurrence of malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management.
With a Z-score of 0.008, the university displays a medium risk for institutional self-citation, showing a greater sensitivity to this practice compared to the low-risk national average (-0.119). While a certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of established research lines, this disproportionately higher rate can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This value warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by broader recognition from the global community.
The institution demonstrates notable resilience with a low-risk Z-score of -0.022 for publications in discontinued journals, contrasting sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.179. This suggests that the university's control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk prevalent in the country. A high proportion of output in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence, but the university's low score indicates that its researchers are successfully avoiding reputational risks associated with 'predatory' or low-quality publishing practices by carefully selecting their dissemination channels.
The university's Z-score of 0.217 for hyper-authored output places it at a medium risk level, notably higher than the national average of 0.074, which is also at a medium level. This indicates a high exposure to this practice, suggesting the institution is more prone to showing alert signals than its environment average. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, this elevated rate can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This signal serves to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and potentially inappropriate 'honorary' or political authorship practices.
The institution's Z-score of 0.101 reveals a medium-risk gap between its overall publication impact and the impact of research where it holds a leadership role. This represents a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average (-0.064), suggesting a greater sensitivity to this issue. A very wide positive gap signals a sustainability risk, suggesting that scientific prestige is dependent and exogenous, not structural. This invites reflection on whether the university's excellence metrics result from real internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The university exhibits a prudent profile regarding hyperprolific authors, with a low-risk Z-score of -0.588 that is even more rigorous than the national standard of -0.430. This indicates that the institution manages its authorship processes with greater control than its peers. While high productivity can evidence leadership, extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's low score suggests it is effectively avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, prioritizing scientific record integrity over sheer volume.
The institution shows a very low-risk Z-score of -0.268 for output in its own journals, demonstrating a form of preventive isolation from the medium-risk dynamics observed nationally (0.119). This indicates the university does not replicate a common risk in its environment. While in-house journals are valuable, excessive dependence on them raises conflicts of interest. The university's very low score suggests it is successfully avoiding academic endogamy and ensuring its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, thereby enhancing its global visibility and competitive validation.
With a Z-score of 0.309, the institution presents a medium risk for redundant output, a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.245. This suggests a higher sensitivity to this risk factor compared to its national counterparts. Massive and recurring bibliographic overlap between simultaneous publications usually indicates data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' This elevated value alerts to the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, a behavior that distorts available scientific evidence and prioritizes volume over significant new knowledge.
