| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.806 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.409 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.825 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.169 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
3.226 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.731 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.868 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
2.730 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.421 | -0.245 |
Kafkas University presents a complex integrity profile, with an overall score of 0.620 that reflects a foundation of significant strengths alongside critical areas requiring strategic intervention. The institution demonstrates exemplary performance in maintaining a very low Rate of Retracted Output and a prudent approach to avoiding redundant publications, indicating robust internal quality controls in specific areas. These strengths are foundational to its thematic leadership, particularly in Veterinary sciences, where it holds a premier national ranking (2nd in Turkey), and shows strong positioning in Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (29th), Arts and Humanities (60th), and Medicine (61st), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, this profile is contrasted by significant-to-medium risks in authorship practices, institutional self-citation, and reliance on internal journals. These vulnerabilities directly challenge the university's mission to foster "original research," "innovation," and "societal leadership." Practices that suggest a focus on metric inflation over substantive contribution, such as hyper-authorship and academic endogamy, could undermine the credibility of its research and its goal to be a "home of science" with global impact. To fully realize its ambitious vision, Kafkas University is advised to leverage its demonstrated strengths in quality assurance to develop targeted governance policies that address these authorship and publication strategy risks, thereby ensuring its scientific output is as robust and credible as its thematic potential.
The institution's Z-score of 0.806 in this indicator shows a moderate deviation from the national Z-score of -0.526. This suggests that the university exhibits a greater sensitivity to risk factors associated with affiliation practices than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this heightened rate warrants a review to ensure that these are driven by genuine collaboration rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The divergence from the national trend calls for monitoring to confirm that affiliation practices align with transparent and substantive research cooperation.
With a Z-score of -0.409, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of retracted publications, performing even better than the already low-risk national average of -0.173. This low-profile consistency is a strong positive signal. The absence of risk signals, even below the national standard, suggests that the university's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are highly effective. This performance reflects a culture of integrity and responsible supervision, where unintentional errors are likely corrected effectively, reinforcing the credibility of its scientific record.
The university's Z-score of 0.825 indicates a moderate deviation from the national Z-score of -0.119. This gap suggests the institution is more sensitive to practices of internal citation than the average in its country. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, this higher rate could signal the formation of scientific 'echo chambers' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This trend warns of a potential risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be disproportionately shaped by internal dynamics rather than broader recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution's Z-score of 0.169 is nearly identical to the national average of 0.179, both at a medium risk level. This alignment indicates that the university's performance reflects a systemic pattern or shared challenge at the national level regarding the selection of publication venues. Although not an outlier, this medium risk level still constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence. It 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 reputational risks and suggesting a need for improved information literacy to avoid 'predatory' practices.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 3.226, a significant risk level that starkly contrasts with the country's medium-risk Z-score of 0.074. This finding suggests a risk accentuation, where the university amplifies a vulnerability already present in the national system. Outside of "Big Science" contexts where large author lists are normal, such a high score is a critical flag for author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This severe discrepancy points to an urgent need to investigate whether these patterns stem from necessary massive collaborations or from systemic 'honorary' or political authorship practices.
With a Z-score of 1.731, the institution shows a moderate deviation from the national Z-score of -0.064. This indicates a greater sensitivity to relying on external partners for impact compared to its national peers. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a potential sustainability risk. It suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, prompting a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The university's Z-score of 0.868 represents a moderate deviation from the national Z-score of -0.430. This difference indicates that the institution has a greater concentration of hyperprolific authors than is typical for its national context. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may signal an imbalance between quantity and quality. This indicator alerts to potential risks such as coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metric accumulation over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of 2.730, while in the medium risk category, signals high exposure to this risk, especially when compared to the national average of 0.119. This marked difference shows the center is far more prone to publishing in its own journals than its environment average. This heavy reliance on in-house journals raises potential conflicts of interest, as the institution acts as both judge and party. It warns of a significant risk of academic endogamy, where scientific work might bypass rigorous, independent external peer review, potentially limiting global visibility and serving as a 'fast track' to inflate publication counts without standard competitive validation.
The institution demonstrates a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.421, which is lower than the national average of -0.245, both within the low-risk category. This indicates that the center manages its publication processes with more rigor than the national standard in this regard. This strong performance suggests that the university effectively discourages the practice of dividing a single study into minimal publishable units, known as 'salami slicing.' By doing so, it prioritizes the communication of significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of productivity metrics, thereby strengthening the quality and reliability of its scientific output.
