| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.450 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.353 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.114 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.201 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
1.672 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.453 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.020 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.010 | -0.245 |
Yeditepe University presents a robust and generally healthy scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.076 that indicates performance aligned with global standards. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths in its publication processes, showing very low rates of redundant output and publication in institutional journals, alongside a commendable resilience against the national trend of using discontinued journals. These factors signal a strong internal culture of quality control and a commitment to external validation. The University's academic excellence is further evidenced by its strong national rankings in key thematic areas, including Dentistry (24th), Agricultural and Biological Sciences (28th), and Medicine (28th), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, this solid foundation is contrasted by notable vulnerabilities in authorship and collaboration practices, specifically a significant rate of hyper-authored output and medium-risk signals for hyperprolific authors, multiple affiliations, and a dependency on external partners for impact. These trends could challenge the core mission of fostering "unique, self-confident" researchers and ensuring "high quality education," as they may prioritize metric volume over individual, substantive contributions. To fully align its practices with its mission, Yeditepe University is encouraged to leverage its procedural strengths to develop clearer governance and mentorship around authorship and collaboration, thereby ensuring its recognized thematic excellence is built upon a sustainable and transparent foundation of internal leadership.
The institution's Z-score of 0.450 shows a moderate deviation from the national Z-score of -0.526. This indicates that the university displays a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, a disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. This divergence from the national standard suggests a need to review affiliation patterns to ensure they reflect genuine, substantive collaborations rather than "affiliation shopping," thereby safeguarding the unique identity and credit of the institution's research.
With a Z-score of -0.353, the institution demonstrates a prudent profile that is more rigorous than the national standard (Z-score: -0.173). This favorable result suggests that the university's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are effective. Retractions can be complex, but a rate below the national average points towards responsible supervision and a healthy integrity culture. This performance indicates that potential errors are likely being caught and corrected internally, reinforcing the institution's commitment to producing reliable and high-quality scientific work.
The institution's Z-score of -0.114 is in close alignment with the national Z-score of -0.119, indicating a level of risk that is statistically normal for its context. This demonstrates a healthy balance, where a certain level of self-citation naturally reflects the continuity of established research lines. Crucially, the low and typical rate shows no signs of concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' It suggests the institution's academic influence is appropriately validated by the global community rather than being inflated by endogamous internal dynamics.
Yeditepe University shows remarkable institutional resilience with a low-risk Z-score of -0.201, contrasting sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.179. This performance indicates that the institution's control mechanisms effectively mitigate a systemic risk prevalent in the country. It demonstrates strong due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, protecting the university from the severe reputational risks associated with 'predatory' or low-quality practices. This proactive stance ensures that research resources are channeled toward credible venues that meet international ethical and quality standards.
The institution's Z-score of 1.672 is a significant alert, sharply accentuating a vulnerability that is present but less pronounced in the national system (Z-score: 0.074). This high rate of hyper-authored output requires urgent attention. Outside of 'Big Science' contexts where extensive author lists are standard, such a pattern can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This signal strongly suggests a need to audit authorship practices to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and potentially problematic 'honorary' or political authorship, which can undermine the integrity of the scientific record.
The university's Z-score of 0.453 represents a moderate deviation from the national Z-score of -0.064, signaling a potential sustainability risk. This positive gap suggests that the institution's overall scientific prestige is heavily reliant on collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. While partnering is essential, this dependency indicates that its high-impact profile may be more exogenous than structural. This finding invites a strategic reflection on how to build and showcase genuine internal capacity, ensuring that excellence metrics are a direct result of the university's own research leadership.
With a Z-score of 0.020, the institution shows a moderate deviation from the low-risk national standard (Z-score: -0.430). This divergence suggests a greater sensitivity to risk factors related to extreme productivity. While high output can reflect leadership, publication volumes that challenge the limits of human capacity for meaningful contribution can signal an imbalance between quantity and quality. This alert points to potential risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, highlighting a need to ensure that institutional incentives prioritize scientific integrity over sheer metrics.
The institution demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation with a very low Z-score of -0.268, standing in stark contrast to the medium-risk national environment (Z-score: 0.119). This result is a significant strength, showing that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed nationally. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the institution actively sidesteps conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This commitment to independent, external peer review enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, ensuring its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels.
With a Z-score of -1.010, the institution exhibits low-profile consistency, as its near-total absence of risk signals aligns with and improves upon the national standard (Z-score: -0.245). This exceptionally low rate of redundant output is a strong indicator of research integrity. It suggests that authors are focused on producing coherent, significant studies rather than engaging in 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a single study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This commitment to substance over volume reinforces the quality of the university's scientific contribution and respects the academic review system.
