| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.112 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
2.456 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.506 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.542 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.180 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.282 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.952 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.533 | -0.245 |
Istanbul Ticaret University demonstrates a dual profile in scientific integrity, marked by areas of exceptional governance alongside specific, high-priority vulnerabilities. With an overall score of 0.709, the institution exhibits robust control over authorship practices, showing very low risk in hyper-authorship, hyperprolific authors, redundant output, and publication in institutional journals. These strengths suggest a culture that values individual accountability and external validation. However, this positive foundation is critically undermined by a significant rate of retracted publications and medium-risk signals in multiple affiliations and output in discontinued journals. These weaknesses directly challenge the university's mission to cultivate "qualified" human resources with "local and universal moral values" and a sense of "responsibility." The high retraction rate, in particular, suggests a potential disconnect between the institution's ethical aspirations and its pre-publication quality control mechanisms. The university's recognized thematic strengths, particularly in Economics, Econometrics and Finance (ranked 11th in Turkey), Business, Management and Accounting (17th), and Social Sciences (33rd) according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, provide a solid reputational base that must be protected. To fully align its research practices with its stated mission, it is recommended that the university initiates a targeted review of its quality assurance protocols and publication ethics training, focusing on mitigating the identified risks to safeguard its academic credibility and ensure its contributions are both impactful and irreproachable.
The institution presents a Z-score of 1.112, a notable contrast to the national average of -0.526. This moderate deviation indicates that 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, a disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” The university's higher-than-average score suggests a need to review its affiliation policies to ensure they promote genuine collaboration rather than simply maximizing institutional visibility, thereby safeguarding the transparency and integrity of its research attributions.
With a Z-score of 2.456 against a national average of -0.173, the institution shows a severe discrepancy in a critical integrity area. This risk activity is highly atypical for the national context and points to an urgent need for a deep integrity assessment. Retractions are complex events, but a rate this far above the norm suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This high Z-score is a serious alert to a vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.506 is below the national average of -0.119, reflecting a prudent and healthy profile in this area. This indicates that the university manages its citation practices with more rigor than the national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's low rate demonstrates a strong reliance on external validation and minimizes the risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers.' This approach suggests that the institution's academic influence is built on broad recognition from the global community rather than being inflated by internal dynamics.
The university's Z-score of 0.542 is higher than the national average of 0.179, indicating a high exposure to this risk. Although publishing in such journals is a shared pattern at the national level, the institution is more prone to these alert signals 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 indicates that a 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 suggesting an urgent need for enhanced information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of -1.180, the institution demonstrates a complete absence of risk in an area where the country shows a medium-level tendency (Z-score of 0.074). This reflects a state of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. This very low score indicates a strong culture of transparency and accountability in authorship, successfully distinguishing between necessary collaboration and practices like 'honorary' authorship. The institution's practices serve as a clear safeguard against the dilution of individual responsibility in its scientific output.
The institution's Z-score of -0.282 is lower than the national average of -0.064, indicating a prudent profile and a healthier dynamic than its national context. This demonstrates that the university manages its collaborative processes with more rigor than the national standard. A small gap suggests that its scientific prestige is not overly dependent on external partners but is instead driven by strong internal capacity and intellectual leadership. This reflects a sustainable model where excellence metrics are a result of genuine, structural research capabilities.
The institution's Z-score of -0.952 is well below the national average of -0.430, demonstrating low-profile consistency in a low-risk area. The complete absence of risk signals in this indicator aligns with, and even improves upon, the national standard. This very low score indicates that the university fosters a healthy balance between productivity and quality, avoiding the potential pitfalls of extreme publication volumes. It points to a research environment that prioritizes meaningful intellectual contribution over metrics, thereby mitigating risks such as coercive authorship or superficial publications.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows no evidence of this risk, in stark contrast to the national environment's medium-risk Z-score of 0.119. This is a clear case of preventive isolation, where the center successfully avoids a vulnerability present in the national system. By not relying on in-house journals, the university avoids potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This commitment to independent, external peer review enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, ensuring its output is validated through standard competitive channels.
The institution's Z-score of -0.533, compared to the national average of -0.245, reflects a state of low-profile consistency where the absence of risk signals aligns with the national standard. This very low value indicates that the university's researchers are not engaging in 'salami slicing' or the practice of dividing studies into minimal publishable units. This reinforces a culture focused on producing significant new knowledge rather than artificially inflating productivity metrics, which protects the integrity of the scientific record and respects the academic review system.
