| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.177 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.390 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.928 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.120 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.886 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.643 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.009 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -0.245 |
Yasar University presents a strong overall scientific integrity profile, with a global risk score of -0.402 indicating performance that is significantly healthier than the international average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of Retracted Output, Institutional Self-Citation, and Redundant Output, demonstrating robust quality control and a culture of external validation. These strengths are complemented by high-ranking thematic areas in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly in Business, Management and Accounting (Top 10 in Turkey), Psychology, and Economics, Econometrics and Finance. However, two areas require strategic attention: a moderate dependency on external collaborations for impact (Ni_difference) and a higher-than-average incidence of hyperprolific authors. These vulnerabilities could subtly undermine the university's mission to "contribute to the development of both the local and global community" by suggesting that its impact is not fully endogenous and that quantitative pressures may exist. Addressing these specific risks will be crucial to fully align its operational practices with its stated principles of scientific excellence and social contribution, thereby solidifying its position as a leader in responsible research.
The institution's Z-score of -1.177 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.526, indicating an exceptionally prudent approach to author affiliations. This very low rate demonstrates a clear alignment with the national standard of transparency, and even surpasses it. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, the university's data shows no signs of strategic "affiliation shopping" to inflate institutional credit. This operational silence in a key risk area suggests that collaborative frameworks are managed with high integrity, ensuring that institutional credit is attributed clearly and ethically.
With a Z-score of -0.390, the university maintains a very low rate of retracted publications, consistent with the low-risk national context (Z-score: -0.173). This strong performance suggests that institutional quality control mechanisms are effective prior to publication. Retractions can sometimes signify responsible supervision through the correction of honest errors; however, the near-absence of such events here points toward a systemic strength in methodological rigor and a culture of integrity that proactively prevents the kind of recurring malpractice that would elevate this indicator.
The university exhibits a very low rate of institutional self-citation (Z-score: -0.928), well below the country's already low average (Z-score: -0.119). This result is a strong positive signal of external engagement and global integration. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's profile clearly avoids the risk of creating scientific "echo chambers" or inflating its impact through endogamous practices. This demonstrates that the university's academic influence is robustly validated by the international scientific community, not just by internal dynamics.
Yasar University demonstrates notable institutional resilience, maintaining a low-risk profile (Z-score: -0.120) in an area where the national context shows medium risk (Z-score: 0.179). This suggests that the institution's control mechanisms and researcher guidance are effectively mitigating a systemic risk prevalent in the country. A high proportion of output in such journals is a critical alert for due diligence, and the university's performance indicates it successfully protects its reputation and resources by channeling its scientific production away from media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards.
The institution effectively acts as a filter against national tendencies, showing a low rate of hyper-authored output (Z-score: -0.886) in contrast to the medium-risk national average (Z-score: 0.074). While extensive author lists are legitimate in "Big Science," their appearance elsewhere can signal author list inflation. The university's controlled approach suggests a culture that values transparency and individual accountability, successfully distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and questionable "honorary" authorship practices that can dilute responsibility.
A moderate deviation from the national norm is observed in this indicator, with the university's Z-score at 0.643 (medium risk) compared to the country's low-risk average of -0.064. This suggests the institution is more sensitive to this risk factor than its peers. The wide positive gap indicates that while overall impact is high, a significant portion may rely on external partners where the institution does not hold intellectual leadership. This signals a potential sustainability risk, inviting a strategic review to strengthen internal research capacity and ensure that its scientific prestige is structural and endogenous, not merely dependent and exogenous.
The university shows a moderate deviation from the national standard, with a medium-risk Z-score of 0.009 in a low-risk national environment (Z-score: -0.430). This indicates a greater exposure to this risk factor than its peers. While high productivity can reflect leadership, extreme publication volumes challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This signal warrants a review to ensure a healthy balance between quantity and quality, and to safeguard against risks such as coercive authorship or "salami slicing," which prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution demonstrates a clear preventive isolation from national publishing trends, with a very low Z-score of -0.268 in a country context of medium risk (Z-score: 0.119). This shows the university does not replicate risk dynamics common in its environment. By avoiding dependence on in-house journals, the institution effectively mitigates conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures its research undergoes independent external peer review, enhancing its global visibility and reinforcing a commitment to standard competitive validation over internal "fast tracks."
With an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.186, the university's performance is significantly stronger than the already low-risk national average of -0.245. This near-total absence of risk signals is a powerful indicator of high-integrity research practices. It suggests that authors prioritize the publication of coherent, significant studies over artificially inflating productivity by fragmenting data into "minimal publishable units." This commitment to substantive contributions strengthens the scientific record and underscores the institution's focus on knowledge advancement over metric optimization.
