| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.901 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.230 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.506 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.362 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.874 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.587 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.312 | -0.245 |
Nigde Omer Halisdemir University demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.369 indicating a performance significantly stronger than the global average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of hyperprolific authorship, multiple affiliations, and publication in its own journals, suggesting a culture that prioritizes quality, transparency, and external validation. This solid foundation is complemented by strong performance in research areas such as Energy, Dentistry, and Physics and Astronomy, where it holds competitive national rankings according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. This commitment to sound practices directly supports the university's mission to cultivate individuals with "ethical and evaluative values." However, a notable vulnerability exists in the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, which presents a medium risk and is higher than the national average. This specific practice could undermine the institution's contribution to the "development of science" by associating its research with low-quality dissemination channels. To fully align its operational practices with its stated mission of excellence, the university is advised to leverage its strong integrity framework to implement targeted information literacy and due diligence policies regarding publication venue selection.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.901, which is significantly lower than the national average of -0.526. This result reflects a pattern of low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals is even more pronounced than the already low-risk national standard. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of researcher mobility or partnerships, the university's very low rate confirms that its collaborative practices are transparent and not indicative of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping.” This demonstrates a clear and unambiguous approach to academic attribution.
With a Z-score of -0.230, the institution maintains a prudent profile that is more rigorous than the national standard (Z-score: -0.173). Retractions are complex events, but a rate lower than the country average suggests that the university's quality control and supervision mechanisms prior to publication are particularly effective. This low incidence of post-publication corrections points to a healthy integrity culture and strong methodological rigor, minimizing the likelihood of systemic failures or recurring malpractice that would necessitate such measures.
The university's Z-score of -0.506 is substantially lower than the national average of -0.119, indicating a prudent and externally-focused research profile. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's very low rate demonstrates a strong reliance on external validation and integration within the global scientific community. This effectively mitigates the risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers' or endogamously inflating its impact, ensuring that its academic influence is a reflection of broad recognition rather than internal dynamics.
The institution shows a Z-score of 0.362, which signals a high exposure to this risk factor, especially when compared to the national average of 0.179. This is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. The data suggests the university is more prone than its national peers to channeling its scientific production through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and indicates an urgent need to enhance information literacy among its researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality journals.
The institution's Z-score of -0.874 contrasts sharply with the national average of 0.074, demonstrating remarkable institutional resilience. While the national context shows a medium risk for authorship inflation, the university maintains a very low-risk profile, suggesting that its internal control mechanisms effectively mitigate this systemic trend. This indicates a clear distinction between necessary large-scale collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship practices, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency in its publications.
With a Z-score of -0.587, significantly lower than the national average of -0.064, the institution demonstrates a prudent and self-reliant profile. A small gap indicates that the impact of research led by the institution's own authors is comparable to the impact of its collaborative work. This is a strong sign of scientific maturity and sustainability, suggesting that the university's prestige is built on genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, rather than being dependent on the contributions of external partners.
The university's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, far below the national average of -0.430. This reflects a state of low-profile consistency, where the institution's near-total absence of hyperprolificacy aligns with, and even surpasses, the low-risk national environment. This metric suggests a healthy balance between productivity and quality, steering clear of dynamics where extreme publication volumes might challenge the capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution. It indicates a culture that values the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of quantitative metrics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 signifies a state of preventive isolation from a risk that is more prevalent nationally (country Z-score: 0.119). The university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment, showing a clear preference for external, independent peer review over in-house publication channels. This practice mitigates potential conflicts of interest and avoids academic endogamy, enhancing the global visibility and competitive validation of its research output rather than using internal journals as potential 'fast tracks' for publication.
The institution's Z-score of -0.312 indicates a prudent profile, as it is lower than the national average of -0.245. This suggests that the university manages its publication processes with more rigor than the national standard regarding data fragmentation. A low rate of bibliographic overlap between publications signals a commitment to publishing coherent, significant studies rather than engaging in 'salami slicing' to artificially inflate productivity. This responsible approach respects the scientific record and the academic review system.
