| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.993 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
3.367 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.058 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.337 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.162 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.797 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.877 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.823 | -0.245 |
Dumlupinar University presents a complex integrity profile, marked by areas of exceptional governance alongside specific, critical vulnerabilities. With an overall score of 0.903, the institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining low rates of multiple affiliations, hyper-authorship, redundant output, and output in its own journals, often performing better than the national average. These strengths are foundational to its scientific credibility. However, this positive performance is severely undermined by a critical alert in its rate of retracted output and concerning medium-risk signals in institutional self-citation, hyperprolific authorship, and publication in discontinued journals. These weaknesses directly challenge the university's mission to educate "unbiased" individuals who adopt "scientific... thoughts" and "contribute to the development of Turkey," as they suggest a potential disconnect between aspirational values and research practices. The university's strong national standing in key thematic areas, including Social Sciences (ranked 34th in Turkey), Business, Management and Accounting (35th), and Chemistry (46th) according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, provides a solid platform of academic excellence. To safeguard this reputation and fully align with its mission, it is recommended that the university leverage its robust governance in strong areas to conduct a thorough review and implement corrective measures for the identified high-risk indicators, thereby ensuring its contributions are both impactful and built on a foundation of unwavering scientific integrity.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.993, which is well below the national average of -0.526. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals aligns with and even improves upon the national standard. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the university’s exceptionally low rate indicates robust and transparent affiliation practices. This performance suggests that the institution effectively avoids strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” reinforcing a culture of clear and honest academic attribution.
A Z-score of 3.367 marks a severe discrepancy from the national average of -0.173, indicating that the institution's risk activity in this area is highly atypical and requires a deep integrity assessment. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the global average alerts to a critical vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically, pointing to possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to prevent further damage to its scientific reputation.
The institution's Z-score of 0.058 represents a moderate deviation from the national Z-score of -0.119. This indicates that the university shows a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers. While some self-citation is natural, this elevated rate can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. The score warns of a potential for endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be partially oversized by internal dynamics rather than by broader recognition from the global scientific community.
With a Z-score of 0.337, the institution shows high exposure to this risk, trending above the national average of 0.179. This indicates that the university is more prone to showing alert signals than its environment. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score suggests that a significant portion of its 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 improved information literacy to avoid predatory practices.
The institution's Z-score of -1.162 is exceptionally low, especially when compared to the national average of 0.074. This reflects a state of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. This strong performance indicates that the institution maintains clear standards for authorship that effectively prevent the inflation of author lists. By doing so, it upholds individual accountability and transparency, successfully distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and questionable honorary authorship practices.
The institution demonstrates a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.797, which is significantly better than the national standard of -0.064. This indicates that the university manages its collaborative processes with more rigor than its national peers. A low score in this indicator is a positive sign of sustainability, suggesting that the institution's scientific prestige is not overly dependent on external partners. This reflects strong internal capacity and structural excellence, where the university exercises intellectual leadership in its research endeavors rather than relying on strategic positioning in collaborations.
The university's Z-score of 0.877 constitutes a moderate deviation from the national Z-score of -0.430, showing a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality at the institution, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metric performance over the integrity of the scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows an exceptionally low reliance on its own journals, standing in stark contrast to the national average of 0.119. This demonstrates a form of preventive isolation, where the university successfully avoids the risk dynamics present in the national system. By not depending on its in-house journals, the institution mitigates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, enhancing its global visibility and competitive validation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.823 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.245, reflecting low-profile consistency and an absence of risk signals that is even better than the national standard. This very low score indicates that the university's researchers are not engaging in the practice of dividing coherent studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This commitment to publishing complete and significant work strengthens the scientific record and demonstrates a culture that prioritizes new knowledge over volume.
