| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.428 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.061 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.592 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.395 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.740 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.544 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.079 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.523 | -0.245 |
Kirikkale University demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.337 that reflects a performance generally superior to the national standard. The institution exhibits exceptional governance in key areas, particularly in its minimal reliance on institutional journals and its effective management of authorship practices, where it successfully insulates itself from higher-risk national trends. This strong foundation is complemented by notable research strengths, as evidenced by its high national rankings in specialized fields such as Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (ranked 16th), Dentistry (21st), and Veterinary sciences (27th) according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, a significant vulnerability exists in the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, which is higher than the national average and directly challenges the mission's commitment to "high quality academic programs" and meeting "international" standards. This practice risks undermining the institution's reputation and the societal impact of its research. To fully align its operational practices with its strategic vision, it is recommended that the University leverage its solid integrity framework to implement targeted training on responsible publication strategies, thereby safeguarding its academic excellence and ensuring its contributions to society are both valuable and reputable.
The University's Z-score of -1.428 is well below the national average of -0.526, indicating a very low incidence of this risk factor. This result demonstrates a healthy and transparent approach to academic collaboration, where the absence of risk signals aligns perfectly with the low-risk national context. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of researcher mobility or partnerships, the University's exceptionally low rate confirms that its collaborative patterns are not indicative of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in "affiliation shopping," reinforcing a culture of clear and unambiguous academic contribution.
With a Z-score of -0.061, the University's rate of retractions is in the low-risk category, yet it is slightly higher than the national average of -0.173. This subtle difference suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring. Retractions can be complex, sometimes reflecting responsible error correction. However, a rate that edges above the national baseline, even if low, may signal that pre-publication quality control mechanisms could be failing in isolated cases. This serves as a proactive alert to review and reinforce methodological rigor to prevent any potential for recurring malpractice from becoming a systemic issue.
The University exhibits a prudent profile in this area, with a Z-score of -0.592 that is significantly lower than the national average of -0.119. This indicates that the institution manages its citation practices with more rigor than the national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the University's low rate demonstrates a strong commitment to external validation and avoids the creation of scientific 'echo chambers.' This practice ensures that the institution's academic influence is genuinely recognized by the global community rather than being artificially inflated by internal dynamics.
The University's Z-score of 0.395 is in the medium-risk range and notably higher than the national average of 0.179, indicating a high exposure to this particular risk. This is a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting publication venues. The score suggests that a significant portion of the institution's scientific output is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the University to severe reputational damage and points to an urgent need to enhance information literacy among researchers to prevent the misallocation of resources into 'predatory' or low-quality publishing.
With a Z-score of -0.740, the University shows a low rate of hyper-authorship, contrasting sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.074. This demonstrates strong institutional resilience, suggesting that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks of authorship inflation observed elsewhere in the country. By maintaining disciplined authorship practices, the University avoids the dilution of individual accountability and transparency, successfully distinguishing its legitimate large-scale collaborations from potential 'honorary' or political authorship practices.
The University maintains a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.544, which is considerably lower than the national average of -0.064. This indicates that the institution's scientific prestige is structurally sound and not overly dependent on external partners for intellectual leadership. A smaller gap suggests that the impact generated by research led directly by the University's authors is closely aligned with its overall collaborative impact. This reflects a strong internal capacity for high-quality research and a sustainable model for building academic influence.
The University's Z-score of -1.079 is in the very low-risk category, far below the national average of -0.430. This consistency with a low-risk environment signals a healthy balance between productivity and scientific quality. The near absence of hyperprolific authors suggests that the institutional culture prioritizes meaningful intellectual contribution over sheer volume. This effectively mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thereby protecting the integrity of the scientific record.
The University's Z-score of -0.268 places it in the very low-risk category, in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.119. This demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, where the institution deliberately avoids the risk dynamics common in its environment. By not relying on its own journals, the University circumvents potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This commitment to seeking independent, external peer review enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, ensuring its work is validated through standard competitive channels.
With a Z-score of -0.523, the University shows a very low rate of redundant publications, well below the national average of -0.245. This low-profile consistency indicates a strong institutional focus on substantive research over metric inflation. The data suggests that the University's authors prioritize the publication of coherent, significant studies rather than engaging in 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a single study into multiple minimal units. This approach respects the scientific record and the peer-review system by contributing meaningful new knowledge.
