Suleyman Demirel University, Isparta

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Suleyman Demirel University demonstrates a generally robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.223 indicating a solid foundation but with specific areas requiring strategic attention. The institution exhibits exceptional strength in preventing problematic practices such as excessive multiple affiliations, hyperprolific authorship, and reliance on institutional journals, often performing significantly better than the national average. These strengths are complemented by strong academic positioning, with SCImago Institutions Rankings data highlighting national leadership in key areas including Economics, Econometrics and Finance; Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics; Dentistry; and Earth and Planetary Sciences. However, identified vulnerabilities in publication strategy—specifically, a tendency to publish in discontinued journals and potential data fragmentation—along with a notable dependency on external partners for research impact, present a challenge to its mission. To fully realize its ambition of providing a "world class education" built on "innovation and critical reflection," the university must align its research practices with its core values, ensuring that its pursuit of excellence is underpinned by unimpeachable integrity and sustainable, internally-driven leadership.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution exhibits an exemplary profile in this area, with a Z-score of -0.965, which indicates a complete absence of risk signals and is notably lower than the country's already low-risk score of -0.526. This result suggests that the university's affiliation practices are transparent and well-governed, aligning perfectly with national standards for ethical collaboration. This low rate effectively dismisses any concerns about strategic "affiliation shopping" or attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit, reinforcing a culture where academic contributions are clearly and legitimately attributed.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.306, the institution demonstrates a prudent and rigorous approach to quality control, performing better than the national average of -0.173. This low incidence of retractions suggests that the university's pre-publication review and supervision mechanisms are robust and effective. A rate significantly below the norm is a positive sign of a healthy integrity culture, indicating that potential methodological errors or malpractice are successfully identified and corrected before they can damage the scientific record, thereby preventing the kind of systemic failures that a higher rate might signal.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university maintains a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.267, which is more rigorous than the national standard of -0.119. This controlled level of institutional self-citation indicates that the university is well-integrated into the global research community and avoids the risks of scientific isolation. By not relying excessively on its own work for validation, the institution circumvents the creation of 'echo chambers' and ensures its academic influence is derived from broad external recognition rather than being inflated by endogamous citation dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 0.290 reflects a medium-risk level that, while part of a systemic pattern seen nationally (Z-score 0.179), shows a higher exposure than the country average. This elevated rate constitutes a significant alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. It indicates that a portion of the university's scientific output is being placed in journals that fail to meet international quality or ethical standards, a practice that carries severe reputational risks. This vulnerability suggests an urgent need to enhance information literacy and guidance for researchers to prevent the misdirection of valuable research into predatory or low-impact venues.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.812, the institution displays remarkable resilience against a risk that is more prevalent at the national level (Z-score 0.074). This strong negative score indicates that the university's control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the country's systemic tendencies toward authorship issues. The data suggests a culture that values clear accountability and transparency, successfully distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and problematic practices like author list inflation or the inclusion of 'honorary' authorships.

Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership

The institution's Z-score of 2.085 marks a moderate deviation from the national standard (Z-score -0.064), indicating a greater sensitivity to this particular risk. This wide positive gap signals a potential sustainability issue, as it suggests that the university's overall scientific prestige is heavily dependent on collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This reliance on exogenous impact invites a strategic reflection on whether its high-level excellence metrics are the result of genuine internal capacity or a consequence of strategic positioning in partnerships led by others, highlighting a need to foster more home-grown, high-impact research.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution shows an exceptionally strong performance with a Z-score of -1.315, indicating a complete absence of risk signals and far exceeding the low-risk national benchmark of -0.430. This demonstrates a healthy institutional culture that prioritizes the quality and substance of research over sheer volume. The data confirms the absence of extreme publication patterns that often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution, thereby avoiding associated risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation and upholding the integrity of its scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution effectively isolates itself from the medium-risk dynamics observed across the country (Z-score 0.119). This preventive stance is a clear indicator of a commitment to external, independent peer review and global visibility. By avoiding over-reliance on its own journals, the university mitigates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels rather than potentially being fast-tracked to inflate publication metrics.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of 0.307 places it in a medium-risk category, representing a moderate deviation from the low-risk national context (Z-score -0.245). This score suggests a greater sensitivity to practices of data fragmentation and alerts to the possibility of 'salami slicing,' where a single coherent study may be divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice not only overburdens the peer-review system but also distorts the scientific evidence, signaling a need to reinforce policies that prioritize the publication of significant, complete findings over volume.