| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.254 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.014 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.005 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.317 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.076 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.254 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.262 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.240 | -0.245 |
Eskisehir Osmangazi University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.248, which indicates a performance superior to the global average. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths in managing risks associated with the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, the Rate of Hyperprolific Authors, and the Rate of Output in Institutional Journals, where it operates at a 'very low' risk level, often in stark contrast to national trends. These areas of excellence suggest a strong internal culture of accountability and a commitment to external validation. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a 'medium' risk level in Institutional Self-Citation and Output in Discontinued Journals, which slightly exceed national averages. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's thematic leadership is concentrated in health and natural sciences, with top national rankings in Dentistry (7th), Veterinary (33rd), Medicine (36th), and Earth and Planetary Sciences (37th). This performance strongly aligns with its mission to provide "effective and competitive health services" and achieve "excellence." The identified risks, particularly those related to self-citation and publication in discontinued journals, could undermine this pursuit of excellence and international preference by creating perceptions of academic insularity or a lack of due diligence. To fully realize its mission, the university is advised to leverage its clear strengths in research governance to develop targeted policies that mitigate these specific vulnerabilities, thereby ensuring its reputation for quality and innovation is built on a foundation of unimpeachable scientific integrity.
The institution exhibits an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.254, significantly below the national average of -0.526. This demonstrates a clear and positive operational standard, where the absence of risk signals surpasses the already low-risk context of the country. This result strongly suggests that the university's collaborative practices are transparent and well-governed. While multiple affiliations can sometimes be used to inflate institutional credit, the university's profile indicates that its affiliations are overwhelmingly the legitimate result of genuine researcher mobility and strategic partnerships, reflecting a healthy and well-managed collaborative ecosystem.
With a Z-score of -0.014, the institution's rate of retractions is slightly higher than the national average of -0.173, although both remain in a low-risk category. This minor elevation suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants observation. Retractions are complex events, and while some signify responsible supervision in correcting errors, a rate that edges above the national baseline could hint at potential weaknesses in pre-publication quality control mechanisms. This signal, though not alarming, calls for a proactive review to ensure that systemic issues related to methodological rigor or research malpractice are not developing.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.005, placing it in a 'medium' risk category and indicating a moderate deviation from the national average, which sits at a 'low' risk level of -0.119. This discrepancy highlights a greater sensitivity to this risk factor compared to its national peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this elevated rate signals a potential for scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This trend could lead to an endogamous inflation of impact, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by broader recognition from the global scientific community.
The university's Z-score for this indicator is 0.317, which is not only in the 'medium' risk category but also notably higher than the national average of 0.179. This situation indicates a high exposure to the associated risks, suggesting the institution is more prone to this issue than its peers. 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 scientific production may be channeled through media failing to meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational damage and indicating an urgent need for enhanced information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution demonstrates a low-risk Z-score of -0.076, a positive result that contrasts with the 'medium' risk level observed nationally (0.074). This suggests a notable degree of institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms or cultural norms appear to successfully mitigate a systemic risk prevalent in the country. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' a low score outside these contexts is a positive sign. It indicates that the university effectively avoids practices like author list inflation or 'honorary' authorships, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency in its research output.
With a Z-score of -0.254, the institution shows a more favorable profile than the national average of -0.064, both of which are in the low-risk range. This prudent profile indicates that the university manages its collaborative impact with more rigor than the national standard. A smaller gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is not overly dependent on external partners but is rooted in its own structural capacity. This reflects a healthy balance where the university exercises significant intellectual leadership in its collaborations, ensuring that its high-impact work is a direct result of its internal capabilities and not just a consequence of strategic positioning in projects led by others.
The institution's Z-score of -1.262 is in the 'very low' risk category, representing an outstanding performance compared to the country's already 'low' risk score of -0.430. This near-total absence of risk signals, even below the national standard, points to an exemplary research environment. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may signal imbalances between quantity and quality. This institution's result indicates a strong culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the simple inflation of metrics, effectively avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or superficial publications.
The university has a Z-score of -0.268, placing it in the 'very low' risk category, which is a significant achievement when compared to the national 'medium' risk level of 0.119. This demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, where the institution actively avoids replicating a problematic risk dynamic observed in its environment. By not relying excessively on its own journals, the university sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which is crucial for limiting the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication and for enhancing its global visibility and credibility.
The institution's Z-score of -0.240 is statistically equivalent to the national average of -0.245, with both falling into the 'low' risk category. This alignment indicates a state of statistical normality, where the university's risk level is precisely what would be expected for its context and size. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate data fragmentation or 'salami slicing' to artificially inflate productivity. The university's score suggests that its researchers adhere to standard practices of cumulative knowledge building without engaging in the distortion of scientific evidence, maintaining a healthy balance between productivity and the generation of significant new knowledge.
