| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.296 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.343 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.005 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.213 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
2.389 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.815 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.157 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
0.033 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.421 | -0.245 |
Istanbul University demonstrates a robust overall scientific integrity profile, marked by a very low aggregate risk score of 0.001. The institution exhibits significant strengths in maintaining low rates of retracted output, redundant publications, and output in discontinued journals, often performing better than the national average and showcasing effective internal quality controls. These strengths are foundational to its research excellence, particularly in its top-ranked fields according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, including Business, Management and Accounting (2nd in Turkey), Dentistry (2nd in Turkey), and Medicine (3rd in Turkey). However, this strong performance is contrasted by two critical vulnerabilities: a significant rate of hyper-authored output and a medium-risk gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work where it holds leadership. These indicators pose a direct challenge to the University's mission to "raise competent individuals who produce beneficial knowledge," as they suggest potential dilutions of authorial accountability and a dependency on external partners for high-impact science. To fully align its practices with its ambition to bridge "the East and the West," the institution is encouraged to leverage its clear governance strengths to address these specific vulnerabilities, thereby ensuring its prestigious reputation is built upon a sustainable and transparent foundation of internal scientific leadership.
With a Z-score of -0.296, the institution's rate of multiple affiliations is slightly higher than the national average of -0.526, though both fall within a low-risk range. This subtle difference suggests an incipient vulnerability, where the University shows early signals of a practice that warrants monitoring before it escalates. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this indicator serves as a reminder to ensure that these practices are driven by genuine collaboration rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” thereby safeguarding the transparency of institutional contributions.
The institution demonstrates a prudent profile in its publication quality, with a Z-score of -0.343, which is notably lower than the national average of -0.173. This superior performance indicates that the University manages its pre-publication processes with more rigor than the national standard. A low rate of retractions suggests that its quality control mechanisms and supervisory practices are effective. This is a sign of a healthy integrity culture, where potential errors are identified and corrected before publication, reinforcing the reliability and trustworthiness of its scientific output.
The University's rate of institutional self-citation (Z-score: -0.005) presents an incipient vulnerability, as it is slightly higher than the national benchmark (Z-score: -0.119), despite both being in the low-risk category. This suggests that while not yet a systemic issue, the institution's research may be showing early signs of an 'echo chamber' dynamic. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this metric warrants review to ensure that the institution's work continues to receive sufficient external scrutiny and validation from the global community, mitigating any risk of endogamous impact inflation.
Istanbul University displays strong institutional resilience, with a low-risk Z-score of -0.213 in this indicator, contrasting sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.179. This demonstrates that the institution's control mechanisms and researcher guidance are effectively mitigating a systemic risk prevalent in the country. This performance is a critical strength, indicating that its academic community exercises due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. By avoiding journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, the University successfully protects its resources and reputation from the risks associated with 'predatory' publishing practices.
A significant alert is raised by the institution's Z-score of 2.389 for hyper-authored output, which represents a stark accentuation of the risk compared to the moderate national average of 0.074. This finding suggests the institution amplifies vulnerabilities present in the national system regarding authorship practices. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' fields, such a high score outside those contexts points to a systemic risk of author list inflation, which can dilute individual accountability and transparency. It is urgent to investigate whether this pattern stems from necessary massive collaboration or from 'honorary' authorship practices that compromise the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution exhibits a moderate deviation from the national norm, with a medium-risk Z-score of 1.815, while the country average sits at a low-risk -0.064. This greater sensitivity to risk suggests that the University's scientific prestige may be significantly dependent on external partners. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is comparatively low, signals a sustainability risk. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether the institution's excellence metrics result from its own structural capacity or from a strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
With a Z-score of -0.157, the University's rate of hyperprolific authors is slightly elevated compared to the national average of -0.430, signaling an incipient vulnerability. Although the overall risk is low, these signals warrant review before they can escalate. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to imbalances between quantity and quality. This indicator serves as an alert for potential risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The University demonstrates differentiated management in its use of institutional journals, with a Z-score of 0.033, which is considerably more moderate than the national average of 0.119, even though both fall within the medium-risk category. This indicates that the institution moderates a risk that appears more common across the country. While in-house journals can be valuable, a medium-risk level still warns of potential academic endogamy, where production might bypass rigorous external peer review. The University's more controlled approach helps mitigate this risk, but continued monitoring is advisable to ensure these channels do not become 'fast tracks' for publication without standard competitive validation.
The institution maintains a prudent profile regarding redundant output, with a Z-score of -0.421, which is lower and thus more favorable than the national average of -0.245. This strong performance indicates that the University's research culture effectively discourages the practice of 'salami slicing.' By managing its processes with more rigor than the national standard, the institution ensures its researchers are focused on producing coherent, significant studies rather than artificially inflating productivity by dividing work into minimal publishable units. This commitment reinforces the value of its contributions to the scientific community and avoids overburdening the peer-review system.
