| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.335 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.287 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.414 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.270 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
7.039 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
2.255 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
2.463 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.279 | -0.245 |
Istanbul Bilgi University demonstrates a solid but dichotomous scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of 0.643 reflecting both areas of exceptional governance and significant vulnerabilities. The institution's primary strengths lie in its robust control over publication channels, evidenced by a very low rate of output in institutional journals and a resilient stance against discontinued journals, which is a systemic risk in the national context. These practices are complemented by prudent management of self-citation and retracted publications, indicating a healthy engagement with the global scientific community. Thematically, the university shows strong national positioning according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, particularly in Psychology (ranked 35th in Turkey), Arts and Humanities (37th), Mathematics (45th), and Economics, Econometrics and Finance (46th). However, this academic performance is contrasted by critical risks in authorship practices, specifically hyper-authorship and hyper-prolificacy, and a moderate risk of impact dependency. These vulnerabilities directly challenge the university's mission to foster "respecting the rules of ethics and of professional objectivity," as they suggest that metric-driven pressures may be compromising individual accountability. To fully align its operational practices with its stated mission of excellence and social responsibility, the university is advised to leverage its clear strengths in publication governance to develop and implement stricter policies that ensure transparency and integrity in authorship and collaboration.
The institution presents a Z-score of 1.335, a notable contrast to the national average of -0.526. This indicates a moderate deviation, where the university shows a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the university's higher rate compared to the country's low-risk standard suggests that a review of affiliation policies may be necessary. An elevated rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping,” and understanding the drivers behind this trend is key to ensuring that all declared affiliations represent substantive collaboration.
With a Z-score of -0.287, the institution demonstrates a prudent profile that is even more rigorous than the national standard (-0.173). This low rate suggests that the university's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are functioning effectively. Retractions can be complex, but in this context, the data points towards a culture of responsible supervision where unintentional errors are managed well, rather than indicating any systemic failure or recurring malpractice. This performance reinforces the institution's commitment to methodological rigor and the integrity of its scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.414 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.119, reflecting a prudent profile in its citation practices. This indicates that the university manages its processes with more rigor than the national standard, successfully avoiding the risks of scientific isolation. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this low value demonstrates a healthy reliance on external scrutiny and validation from the global community. It suggests that the institution's academic influence is built on broad recognition rather than being inflated by internal 'echo chambers'.
The university exhibits strong institutional resilience with a Z-score of -0.270, effectively mitigating a risk that is more prevalent at the national level (Z-score of 0.179). This suggests that the institution's control mechanisms and researcher guidance are successful in steering publication efforts away from problematic venues. A high proportion of output in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence, but this institution's performance indicates a strong commitment to channeling its scientific production through media that meet international ethical and quality standards, thereby safeguarding its reputation and resources from predatory practices.
With a Z-score of 7.039, the institution shows a significant risk that sharply accentuates the moderate vulnerability present in the national system (Z-score of 0.074). This extremely high value suggests that the university is amplifying a national tendency towards author list inflation, which can dilute individual accountability and transparency. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, this level of activity warrants an urgent investigation to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and potential 'honorary' or political authorship practices that compromise the integrity of the research record.
The institution's Z-score of 2.255 marks a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.064, indicating a greater sensitivity to this risk factor. This wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is comparatively low, signals a potential sustainability risk. It suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, stemming from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics are the result of genuine internal capacity or a reliance on external partners.
The university's Z-score of 2.463 represents a severe discrepancy when compared to the low-risk national environment (Z-score of -0.430). This risk activity is highly atypical for its context and requires a deep integrity assessment. While high productivity can reflect leadership, extreme individual publication volumes challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record and demand immediate attention.
The institution demonstrates a state of preventive isolation with a Z-score of -0.268, positioning itself as an exemplar by not replicating the risk dynamics observed in its environment (national Z-score of 0.119). This very low rate indicates that the university avoids the potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy associated with excessive dependence on in-house journals. By prioritizing independent, external peer review, the institution enhances its global visibility and ensures its scientific production undergoes standard competitive validation, reinforcing the credibility and reach of its research.
With a Z-score of -0.279, which is nearly identical to the national average of -0.245, the institution's risk level is in a state of statistical normality. This alignment suggests that the university's practices regarding bibliographic overlap are as expected for its context and do not signal any unusual activity. While citing previous work is a necessary part of cumulative science, this result indicates that the institution is not systemically engaging in 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity.
