| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.447 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.306 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.112 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.920 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.098 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.371 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.215 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.481 | -0.245 |
Dicle University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, characterized by a low overall risk score (-0.243) and notable strengths in operational transparency and ethical authorship practices. The institution demonstrates exceptional control in areas such as the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, Hyperprolific Authors, and Output in Institutional Journals, where risks are virtually non-existent. However, this strong foundation is contrasted by moderate alerts in Institutional Self-Citation and, more critically, in the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, which require strategic attention. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's academic strengths are particularly prominent in Earth and Planetary Sciences (ranked 9th in Turkey), Veterinary (34th), Computer Science (37th), and Environmental Science (41st). The identified risks, particularly publishing in low-quality venues, could undermine the institutional mission to nurture individuals with "moral values" and "social and environmental responsibility." Addressing these vulnerabilities will be key to ensuring that the university's pursuit of scientific research aligns fully with its commitment to excellence and ethical leadership. By focusing on enhancing citation practices and improving due diligence in journal selection, Dicle University can solidify its position as a benchmark for scientific integrity in the region.
With an institutional Z-score of -1.447 against a national average of -0.526, Dicle University demonstrates an exceptionally low incidence of multiple affiliations. This performance is consistent with the low-risk national context, indicating that the institution's policies and researcher practices are well-aligned with standard integrity norms. The absence of risk signals suggests that affiliations are managed with clarity and transparency, effectively avoiding strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping.”
The institution's Z-score of -0.306 is notably lower than the national average of -0.173, suggesting a prudent and rigorous approach to research quality. This indicates that the university manages its pre-publication processes with more diligence than the national standard. While retractions can be complex events, this comparatively low rate suggests that the institution's quality control mechanisms are functioning effectively, pointing towards a healthy integrity culture rather than systemic vulnerabilities in methodological rigor or supervision.
Dicle University shows a moderate deviation from the national trend, with a Z-score of 0.112 compared to the country's low-risk average of -0.119. This suggests the institution has a greater sensitivity to factors that encourage internal citation. While a certain level of self-citation is natural to reflect ongoing research lines, this elevated rate could signal a risk of forming scientific 'echo chambers.' It warrants a review to ensure the institution's academic influence is primarily validated by the broader global community rather than being potentially oversized by internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of 0.920 indicates a high exposure to this risk, significantly surpassing the national average of 0.179. This suggests the university is more prone than its peers to publishing in questionable outlets. This pattern is a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. A high value indicates that a significant portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need for enhanced information literacy to avoid 'predatory' practices.
Dicle University demonstrates institutional resilience in this area, maintaining a low-risk Z-score of -0.098 while the national average sits at a moderate-risk level of 0.074. This suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms effectively mitigate the systemic risks present in its environment. The institution appears to successfully distinguish between necessary massive collaboration, which is legitimate in some fields, and problematic practices like author list inflation or 'honorary' authorships, thereby preserving individual accountability.
With a Z-score of -0.371, which is considerably lower than the national average of -0.064, the institution exhibits a prudent and sustainable impact profile. This indicates that its research prestige is not overly dependent on external partners for validation. The small gap suggests that the university's scientific excellence is driven by genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, mitigating the risk of relying on strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not lead, and confirming that its impact is structural rather than exogenous.
The institution's Z-score of -1.215 is exceptionally low, positioning it well below the already low national average of -0.430. This absence of risk signals is consistent with a healthy research environment. It indicates a strong institutional culture that prioritizes a balance between quantity and quality, effectively avoiding the risks associated with extreme publication volumes, such as coercive authorship or assigning credit without meaningful intellectual contribution, which can compromise the integrity of the scientific record.
Dicle University shows a strong preventive isolation from national trends, with a very low Z-score of -0.268 in contrast to the country's moderate-risk average of 0.119. This indicates the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. By avoiding dependence on in-house journals, the university circumvents potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review and is not channeled through internal 'fast tracks' that might bypass standard competitive validation.
The institution maintains a very low Z-score of -0.481, which is well-aligned with and even improves upon the low-risk national standard of -0.245. This absence of risk signals demonstrates a commitment to publishing complete and significant research. It indicates that the university's authors are not engaging in the practice of fragmenting coherent studies into 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity, thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific evidence base and prioritizing the generation of new knowledge over mere volume.
