| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.405 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.315 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.106 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.173 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
1.403 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.568 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.348 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.952 | -0.245 |
Cukurova University presents a balanced scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.106, indicating performance generally aligned with global standards but with specific areas requiring strategic attention. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining editorial independence, evidenced by a very low rate of output in its own journals and a minimal rate of redundant publications (salami slicing). However, notable vulnerabilities emerge in the areas of Hyper-Authored Output, which is significantly high, and moderate risks related to Institutional Self-Citation and a dependency on external collaborations for impact. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas nationally include Agricultural and Biological Sciences (ranked 16th in Turkey), along with Medicine and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (both ranked 21st). To fully realize its mission of sharing scientific knowledge and fostering development, it is crucial to address the risks that could undermine transparency and accountability, such as authorship inflation. By mitigating these vulnerabilities, Cukurova University can ensure its recognized thematic excellence is built upon a foundation of unquestionable scientific integrity, reinforcing its commitment to societal and scientific contribution.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is -0.405, while the national average for Turkey is -0.526. Although the overall risk level is low and consistent with the national context, the university's rate is slightly more pronounced than the country's average. This suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants observation. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this minor elevation could signal an emerging trend towards strategic practices like “affiliation shopping” to inflate institutional credit. Monitoring this indicator is advisable to ensure that collaborative patterns remain transparent and academically justified before they escalate.
With a Z-score of -0.315, the institution demonstrates a more favorable performance compared to the national average of -0.173. This prudent profile suggests that the university's quality control and supervision mechanisms are managed with greater rigor than the national standard. Retractions can be complex, but a low rate like this one is a positive signal of responsible pre-publication oversight. It indicates that potential unintentional errors are likely being caught and corrected effectively, reflecting a healthy integrity culture and robust methodological standards that prevent systemic failures from reaching the publication stage.
The university shows a Z-score of 0.106, a moderate deviation from Turkey's national average of -0.119. This discrepancy indicates that the institution has a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers, with a discernible tendency towards internal citation. While a certain level of self-citation is natural for continuing research lines, this value warns of a potential drift towards scientific isolation. It raises the possibility of 'echo chambers' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny, which could lead to an endogamous inflation of the institution's perceived impact rather than reflecting genuine recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution's Z-score of 0.173 is nearly identical to the national average of 0.179 for Turkey. This alignment suggests that the university's performance reflects a systemic pattern or a shared challenge within the national research environment. A moderate rate of publication in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This shared tendency indicates that researchers across the country may face difficulties in identifying and avoiding media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing their institutions to reputational risks and the potential waste of resources on 'predatory' practices.
With a Z-score of 1.403, the institution exhibits a significant risk level that sharply contrasts with the country's moderate average of 0.074. This finding suggests that the university is not just following but actively amplifying a vulnerability present in the national system. Outside of 'Big Science' fields where large author lists are common, such a high rate is a strong indicator of potential author list inflation. This practice dilutes individual accountability and transparency, and it serves as an urgent signal to investigate whether 'honorary' or political authorship practices are occurring, which would compromise the integrity of the institution's research attributions.
The institution registers a Z-score of 0.568, showing a moderate deviation from the low-risk national benchmark of -0.064. This gap suggests that the university is more sensitive than its national peers to a dependency on external collaborations for achieving high-impact research. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is lower, signals a potential sustainability risk. It suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be largely dependent and exogenous, prompting a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics stem from genuine internal capacity or from a positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The university's Z-score in this area is -0.348, slightly higher than the national average of -0.430. While the overall risk remains low, this score points to an incipient vulnerability, as it shows signals of extreme productivity that are more frequent than in the rest of the country. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the perceived limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This slight elevation warrants review to ensure a healthy balance between quantity and quality, and to preemptively address potential risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, which prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates an exemplary very low risk, especially when contrasted with the medium-risk national average of 0.119. This represents a case of preventive isolation, where the university actively avoids the risk dynamics prevalent in its environment. By minimizing reliance on its own journals, the institution effectively sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production is validated through independent external peer review, thereby strengthening its global visibility and credibility and avoiding the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication.
The institution's Z-score of -0.952 is exceptionally low, positioning it well below the already low national average of -0.245. This demonstrates low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals is in full alignment with, and even exceeds, the national standard for integrity. This very low value is a strong indicator that the university fosters a culture of publishing complete and coherent studies. It successfully avoids the practice of artificially inflating productivity by fragmenting data into 'minimal publishable units,' thereby ensuring its contributions to the scientific evidence base are significant and do not overburden the peer review system.
