| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.983 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.390 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.850 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.044 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.051 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.107 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.266 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.915 | -0.245 |
Dokuz Eylul University demonstrates a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.458. This performance indicates a research culture with very low exposure to questionable practices, particularly in critical areas such as retracted output, institutional self-citation, and redundant publications, where the institution significantly outperforms national averages. This solid foundation of integrity strongly supports the university's mission "to increase the economic, cultural, and social richness of humanity through... education and scientific research." The institution's academic strengths are evident in its high national rankings in key disciplines like Business, Management and Accounting (6th), Medicine (13th), and Psychology (13th), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, two indicators—the rate of hyper-authored output and the gap in impact between collaborative and institution-led research—present a moderate risk. These areas warrant strategic attention, as a dependency on external leadership for impact could, in the long term, limit the university's ability to generate its own structural contributions to humanity's enrichment. By addressing these vulnerabilities, the university can leverage its exceptional integrity framework to foster greater research autonomy and fully align its operational excellence with its aspirational mission.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.983, a value significantly lower than the national average of -0.526. This result indicates a very low-risk profile that is consistent with, and even exceeds, the national standard for affiliation transparency. The absence of risk signals in this area suggests that the university's policies and researcher practices promote clear and unambiguous institutional crediting. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the university's exceptionally low rate effectively mitigates any concern about strategic "affiliation shopping" or attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit, reinforcing a culture of straightforward academic attribution.
With a Z-score of -0.390, the institution demonstrates a near-zero incidence of retracted publications, performing better than the already low-risk national average of -0.173. This alignment with a low-risk environment is a strong indicator of effective quality control mechanisms. Retractions can sometimes signal responsible error correction, but a rate this low suggests that the university's pre-publication review processes—both in terms of methodological rigor and ethical oversight—are robust. This performance confirms that potential issues are likely identified and resolved before publication, safeguarding the institution's reputation and contributing to a culture of scientific integrity.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is -0.850, markedly below the national average of -0.119. This demonstrates an exemplary level of integration with the global scientific community and a notable absence of insular research practices. A certain degree of self-citation is expected, but the university's very low rate dispels any risk of operating as a scientific "echo chamber." This indicates that the institution's academic impact is validated through broad external scrutiny and recognition, rather than being inflated by internal dynamics, showcasing a healthy and outward-looking research ecosystem.
The institution maintains a low-risk Z-score of -0.044, showcasing institutional resilience in a national context that exhibits a medium-risk Z-score of 0.179. This contrast suggests that the university's control mechanisms and guidance for researchers are effective at mitigating a systemic risk present in the country. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals can signal a failure in due diligence, exposing an institution to severe reputational risks from "predatory" practices. The university’s ability to act as a filter in this environment indicates a strong commitment to channeling its scientific output through reputable and enduring media, thereby protecting its research investment and academic standing.
With a Z-score of 0.051, the institution's rate of hyper-authored publications is at a medium-risk level, closely mirroring the national average of 0.074. This alignment suggests that the university's authorship patterns reflect a systemic practice shared across the country, likely concentrated in specific disciplines where large-scale collaboration is the norm. While extensive author lists are legitimate in fields like genomics or high-energy physics, this indicator serves as a signal to verify that these instances are justified by the nature of the research. It is crucial to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and potential author list inflation or "honorary" authorships, which can dilute individual accountability and transparency.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 0.107, indicating a medium-risk gap, which represents a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.064. This suggests the university is more sensitive to this particular risk factor than its national peers. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is significantly higher than the impact of research led by the institution, signals a potential risk to sustainability and scientific autonomy. This value suggests that a portion of the university's prestige may be dependent and exogenous, stemming from collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership. This finding invites a strategic reflection on strengthening internal research capacity to ensure that its high-impact contributions are structural and self-generated.
The institution's Z-score of -1.266 is exceptionally low, positioning it far below the national average of -0.430. This result points to an outstandingly healthy balance between productivity and the integrity of the scientific record. The complete absence of signals for hyperprolific authorship—defined as extreme individual publication volumes that challenge the limits of meaningful contribution—is a powerful indicator of a research environment that prioritizes quality over sheer quantity. This effectively rules out concerns related to coercive authorship or other practices where authorship is assigned without real participation, reinforcing the institution's commitment to responsible research assessment.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a complete absence of risk in this area, demonstrating a clear preventive isolation from a dynamic observed at a medium-risk level in the country (Z-score of 0.119). This indicates a deliberate strategic choice to prioritize external, independent validation for its research. By avoiding reliance on in-house journals, the university effectively eliminates potential conflicts of interest where it would act as both judge and party. This practice ensures its scientific production bypasses any risk of academic endogamy, enhances its global visibility, and confirms its commitment to meeting international standards of competitive peer review.
The institution records a Z-score of -0.915, signifying a very low risk of redundant publication and a performance that is substantially better than the national average of -0.245. This strong result indicates that the university's research output is characterized by substance and coherence. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can be a red flag for "salami slicing," a practice where studies are fragmented into minimal units to inflate productivity metrics. The university's low score suggests a culture that values significant, holistic contributions to knowledge over the artificial inflation of publication counts, thereby strengthening the integrity of the scientific evidence it produces.
