| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.181 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.287 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.181 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.503 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.529 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.004 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.070 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.950 | -0.245 |
Mustafa Kemal University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.320. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining very low-risk levels for multiple affiliations, hyperprolific authorship, publication in institutional journals, and redundant output. These results indicate a solid foundation of responsible research practices. However, areas requiring strategic attention have been identified, particularly a medium-risk exposure to publication in discontinued journals and a noticeable gap between the impact of its total output and that of the research it leads. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university holds prominent national positions in key thematic areas, including Economics, Econometrics and Finance (5th in Turkey), Veterinary (12th), and Social Sciences (42nd). These areas of excellence are central to its mission "to contribute to the development of humanity through effective and high-quality... scientific research." The identified risks, especially concerning publication quality and leadership impact, could challenge this commitment to "high-quality" research. Addressing these vulnerabilities is crucial to ensure that the institution's scientific contributions are not only numerous but also structurally sound, sustainable, and aligned with the highest standards of global excellence. A focused effort on enhancing researcher literacy regarding publication venues and fostering internal research leadership will solidify its already strong position and fully honor its institutional mission.
With an institutional Z-score of -1.181, significantly below the national average of -0.526, the university demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of multiple affiliations. This performance indicates a robust and transparent approach to declaring institutional credits that surpasses the already low-risk national standard. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the university's very low rate suggests a complete absence of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” reinforcing the integrity of its collaborative framework.
The institution exhibits a prudent profile regarding retracted publications, with a Z-score of -0.287 that is lower than the national average of -0.173. This suggests that its quality control and supervision mechanisms are managed with more rigor than the standard for its context. Retractions can be complex events, and a rate significantly higher than average can alert to a vulnerability in an institution's integrity culture. However, the university's comparatively lower rate indicates that its pre-publication quality control mechanisms are effectively preventing systemic failures and minimizing the need for post-publication corrections due to malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor.
The university maintains a healthy rate of institutional self-citation, with a Z-score of -0.181, which is more rigorous than the national standard of -0.119. This prudent profile indicates a strong connection with the global scientific community and an avoidance of insular research practices. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's controlled rate demonstrates that it successfully avoids the risks of scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' This suggests its academic influence is validated by sufficient external scrutiny rather than being potentially oversized by endogamous internal dynamics.
The institution shows a high exposure to the risk of publishing in discontinued journals, with a Z-score of 0.503, which is notably higher than the national average of 0.179. This indicates that the university is more prone to this vulnerability than its peers. This medium-risk score constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. A high proportion of output in such journals indicates that a significant portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. This exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need for enhanced information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution demonstrates notable resilience in managing authorship practices. With a Z-score of -0.529 in a national context where the average is 0.074 (medium risk), its internal control mechanisms appear to be effectively mitigating a systemic national trend. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' fields, a high rate outside these contexts can indicate author list inflation. The university's controlled rate suggests a successful effort to uphold individual accountability and transparency, effectively distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' or political authorship practices.
The institution exhibits a moderate deviation from the national norm, with a Z-score of 0.004 compared to the country's low-risk average of -0.064. This indicates a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers. A positive gap—where global impact is high but the impact of research led by the institution itself is low—signals a potential sustainability risk. This value suggests that a portion of the university's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, not structurally generated from within. This invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from its own internal capacity or from positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
With an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.070, far below the national average of -0.430, the institution demonstrates an exemplary profile concerning hyperprolific authors. This near-total absence of risk signals aligns with and improves upon the national standard. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's very low score indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, suggesting an environment free from dynamics like coercive authorship or 'salami slicing' that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution demonstrates a remarkable case of preventive isolation from a national trend. In a country where publishing in institutional journals presents a medium risk (Z-score 0.119), the university maintains a very low-risk profile with a Z-score of -0.268. This indicates it does not replicate the risk dynamics prevalent in its environment. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest. By avoiding this, the university signals a strong commitment to independent external peer review, ensuring its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels and enhancing its global visibility rather than risking academic endogamy.
The university shows an exceptionally low rate of redundant publications, with a Z-score of -0.950, which is significantly better than the low-risk national standard of -0.245. This absence of risk signals is consistent with a strong adherence to best practices. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate data fragmentation or 'salami slicing' to artificially inflate productivity. The institution's very low score suggests its researchers prioritize the publication of coherent, significant studies, contributing to a more robust scientific record and avoiding the overburdening of the peer-review system.
