| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.106 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.240 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.480 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.214 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.016 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.517 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.091 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.779 | -0.245 |
Kadir Has University presents a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, characterized by a consistently low-risk performance across all monitored indicators (Overall Score: -0.451). The institution demonstrates exceptional control over practices related to academic endogamy and research sustainability, with particularly strong results in minimizing output in institutional journals, avoiding hyperprolific authorship, and ensuring that its scientific impact is driven by internal leadership. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's thematic strengths are most prominent in Economics, Econometrics and Finance, Energy, and Social Sciences. This strong foundation of ethical research practices directly supports the university's mission to "create an environment of education, research, and discussion at the level of the best universities in the world." By maintaining a low-risk profile, the institution ensures that its pursuit of "higher truths" is built on a foundation of credibility and transparency, reinforcing its goal of producing self-confident and questioning leaders. To further this ambition, Kadir Has University is encouraged to leverage this exemplary integrity framework as a strategic asset to attract international talent and build high-impact global collaborations.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.106, which, while within the low-risk band, is slightly elevated compared to the national average of -0.526. This subtle difference suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants observation. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this minor deviation from the national norm indicates that the university shows slightly more of this activity than its peers. It is advisable to ensure these affiliations consistently reflect genuine, substantive collaborations rather than early signs of "affiliation shopping" intended to strategically inflate institutional credit.
With a Z-score of -0.240, the institution demonstrates a more favorable position than the national average of -0.173. This prudent profile suggests that the university's internal processes are managed with greater rigor than the national standard. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly lower than the country's average is a positive signal. It indicates that the institution's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are likely more effective than those of its peers, systemically preventing potential malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor and reinforcing its commitment to a culture of integrity.
The university's Z-score of -0.480 is substantially lower than the national average of -0.119, indicating a prudent and externally-focused research culture. This demonstrates that the institution manages its citation practices with more rigor than the national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this very low rate confirms that the university actively avoids the risks of scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' This result is a strong indicator that the institution's academic influence is genuinely validated by the global community rather than being artificially oversized by internal dynamics.
Kadir Has University exhibits a low-risk Z-score of -0.214, in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.179. This disparity highlights a notable institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate systemic risks prevalent in the country. A high proportion of publications in such journals constitutes a critical alert, but the university's low score indicates strong due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This protects the institution from severe reputational damage and demonstrates an effective information literacy strategy that avoids wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution's Z-score of -1.016 is exceptionally low, particularly when compared to the medium-risk national average of 0.074. This demonstrates effective institutional resilience, acting as a safeguard against authorship inflation trends that may be present in the wider national context. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' this low value outside those fields is a positive signal. It suggests that the university successfully distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and 'honorary' authorship, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency in its research output.
With a Z-score of -1.517, the institution shows a very low-risk profile, consistent with the low-risk national standard of -0.064. This low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with the national environment, points to a healthy and sustainable research model. A wide positive gap can signal that prestige is dependent on external partners, but the university's very low score indicates the opposite. This result suggests that its scientific excellence is structural and stems from real internal capacity, with the institution exercising strong intellectual leadership in its collaborations.
The university's Z-score of -1.091 is in the very low-risk category, well below the national average of -0.430. This low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals is even more pronounced than the national standard, is a positive indicator of a balanced research environment. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's very low score in this area suggests a culture that prioritizes quality over sheer quantity, effectively avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific record.
The institution maintains a very low-risk Z-score of -0.268, distinguishing itself significantly from the medium-risk national average of 0.119. This demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the institution successfully sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which is essential for achieving global visibility and competitive validation.
With a Z-score of -0.779, the university shows a very low rate of redundant output, which is significantly better than the national average of -0.245. This low-profile consistency, where the institution's performance exceeds the already low-risk national standard, signals a strong commitment to impactful research. A high rate of bibliographic overlap can indicate 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a study to inflate productivity. The university's excellent score suggests its researchers prioritize the publication of coherent, significant new knowledge over artificially increasing publication volume, thereby strengthening the scientific record.
