| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.102 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.051 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.605 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.110 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.280 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.124 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.842 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
3.011 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.682 | -0.245 |
Ondokuz Mayis University demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in its overall risk score of 0.028. The institution exhibits significant strengths in areas such as the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and the Rate of Redundant Output, where risk signals are virtually absent and performance exceeds the national standard. This foundation of responsible practice is further supported by prudent management of institutional self-citation and hyperprolific authorship. However, areas requiring strategic attention have been identified, particularly a medium risk level in Retracted Output, a dependency on external collaborations for impact, and a notably high rate of publication in its own institutional journals. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas nationally include Veterinary (ranked 5th in Turkey), Arts and Humanities (14th), Energy (17th), and Medicine (18th). To fully align with its mission to "raise the quality of scientific researches and improve their innovative features," it is crucial to address the identified risks. An over-reliance on internal journals and a gap in leadership impact could hinder the pursuit of top-quality, globally recognized research. By focusing on strengthening external validation and fostering internal scientific leadership, Ondokuz Mayis University can further solidify its commitment to excellence and its role as a leader in its key disciplines.
The institution shows a Z-score of -1.102, which indicates a near-total absence of risk signals and is well below the national average of -0.526. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the university's conservative approach to affiliations aligns with, and even surpasses, the low-risk national standard. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, an absence of high rates suggests that the institution's collaborative practices are transparent and not geared towards artificially inflating institutional credit through "affiliation shopping," reinforcing a culture of clear and accountable research partnerships.
With a Z-score of 0.051, the institution presents a medium risk level, marking a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.173. This suggests the university is more sensitive to factors leading to retractions than its national peers. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the norm alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This Z-score suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing more frequently than elsewhere in the country, indicating that possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor requires immediate qualitative verification by management.
The institution's Z-score of -0.605 is notably lower than the national average of -0.119, even though both fall within a low-risk category. This reflects a prudent profile, indicating that the university manages its citation practices with more rigor than the national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's lower rate demonstrates a healthy reliance on external validation. This avoids the creation of scientific 'echo chambers' and confirms that its academic influence is being built on recognition from the global community rather than being inflated by internal dynamics.
The university demonstrates institutional resilience with a Z-score of -0.110, positioning it in a low-risk category, in contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.179. This suggests that the institution's control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk present in the country. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals can be a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. The university's favorable score indicates that its researchers are successfully channeling their work away from media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, thereby protecting the institution from reputational damage and the waste of resources on low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of -0.280, the institution maintains a low-risk profile, effectively resisting the medium-risk trend observed at the national level (0.074). This performance suggests institutional resilience, where internal policies or academic culture successfully mitigate the systemic risks of authorship inflation seen elsewhere. When hyper-authorship appears outside of 'Big Science' contexts, it can indicate a dilution of individual accountability. The university's controlled rate serves as a positive signal that it effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship practices.
The institution's Z-score of 0.124 places it at a medium risk level, a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.064. This suggests the university shows greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a sustainability risk. This value suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be more dependent and exogenous than is typical for the country, inviting reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership.
The institution's Z-score of -0.842 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.430, showcasing a prudent profile within a low-risk context. This indicates that the university manages its research environment with more rigor than the national standard regarding extreme publication volumes. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The institution's low score is a positive indicator that it effectively mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over sheer metrics.
The institution's Z-score of 3.011 is exceptionally high compared to the national average of 0.119, even though both are categorized as medium risk. This signals high exposure, where the university is far more prone to this risk than its environment. This excessive dependence on in-house journals raises significant conflict-of-interest concerns, as the institution acts as both judge and party. This practice warns of a pronounced risk of academic endogamy, where a substantial portion of its scientific production might be bypassing independent external peer review. This not only limits global visibility but may also indicate the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate CVs without standard competitive validation.
With a Z-score of -0.682, the institution operates at a very low risk level, performing better than the already low-risk national average of -0.245. This low-profile consistency demonstrates an operational environment where the absence of risk signals aligns with and improves upon the national standard. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications often indicates data fragmentation or 'salami slicing' to artificially inflate productivity. The university's excellent score suggests its researchers adhere to high standards of scientific communication, prioritizing the publication of significant new knowledge over distorting the scientific evidence by dividing studies into minimal publishable units.
