| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.304 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.146 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.539 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.345 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.853 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.595 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.309 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
1.993 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.086 | -0.245 |
Yildiz Technical University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in its overall risk score of 0.122, which indicates a predominantly healthy and well-managed research environment. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining a low dependency on external collaborations for impact and effectively curbing hyper-authorship, showcasing strong internal leadership and accountability that surpasses national trends. These strengths are foundational to its outstanding performance in key thematic areas, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings, where it holds top-tier national positions in Energy (1st), Business, Management and Accounting (4th), and Engineering (5th). However, to fully align with its mission of pioneering "ethical" and "scientific research," the university must address moderate risks associated with academic endogamy and publication strategy, specifically in the areas of institutional self-citation, output in institutional journals, and publication in discontinued journals. These practices, if left unmonitored, could subtly undermine the institution's commitment to "international solidarity" and "universal values" by creating a perception of insularity. By proactively refining its publication guidelines and fostering a culture of global-facing dissemination, the university can ensure its operational practices fully embody its mission of excellence and societal progress.
The institution's Z-score for multiple affiliations is -0.304, slightly higher than the national average of -0.526, though both are within a low-risk range. This subtle difference suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this minor uptick compared to the national context indicates a need to ensure that all affiliations are substantive and not early signals of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping."
With a Z-score of -0.146, the university's rate of retracted output is marginally higher than the national baseline of -0.173, yet remains in a low-risk category. This small signal points to an emerging vulnerability that should be observed. Retractions are complex events, and some can signify responsible supervision and the honest correction of errors. However, a rate that begins to rise above the national norm, even slightly, suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may need reinforcement to preemptively address any potential weaknesses in methodological rigor or the institution's integrity culture.
The institution shows a moderate deviation from the national standard, with a Z-score of 0.539 in contrast to the country's low-risk score of -0.119. This indicates a greater sensitivity to self-citation practices than its peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of established research lines. Nevertheless, this disproportionately high rate signals a concerning risk of scientific isolation or the formation of 'echo chambers' where the institution's work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny, potentially leading to an endogamous inflation of its perceived academic influence.
The university demonstrates high exposure to publishing in discontinued journals, with a Z-score of 0.345 that is notably higher than the national average of 0.179. This pattern indicates that the institution is more prone than its peers to channeling its scientific production through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This constitutes a critical alert, as it exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need for enhanced information literacy among researchers to ensure due diligence in selecting dissemination channels and avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The university exhibits notable institutional resilience, with its Z-score of -0.853 standing in stark contrast to the country's medium-risk score of 0.074. This performance suggests that its internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks of authorship inflation observed nationally. This low rate is a positive indicator of a culture that values transparency and accountability, successfully distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' or political authorship practices.
The institution maintains a prudent profile regarding its collaborative impact, with a Z-score of -0.595 that is significantly healthier than the national standard of -0.064. This result indicates a minimal gap between the impact of its overall output and the impact of research led by its own authors. This is a strong signal of sustainability, suggesting that the university's scientific prestige is not dependent on external partners but is driven by genuine internal capacity and structural intellectual leadership, reflecting a robust and self-sufficient research ecosystem.
The institution's rate of hyperprolific authors, with a Z-score of -0.309, is slightly higher than the national baseline of -0.430, pointing to an incipient vulnerability. Although the risk level remains low, this signal warrants review. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of human capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution. This slight elevation serves as an alert to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to latent risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
With a Z-score of 1.993, the university shows a significantly higher exposure to publishing in its own journals compared to the national average of 0.119. This high concentration raises a potential conflict of interest, as the institution acts simultaneously as judge and party in the dissemination process. This pattern warns of a considerable risk of academic endogamy, where scientific production might be bypassing independent external peer review. Such a practice can limit global visibility and may indicate the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate CVs without undergoing standard competitive validation.
The institution displays a moderate deviation from the national norm, with a Z-score of 0.086 for redundant output, while the country shows a low-risk score of -0.245. This suggests the university has a greater sensitivity to practices like 'salami slicing.' A high value in this indicator alerts to the potential practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This behavior distorts the available scientific evidence, overburdens the peer-review system, and prioritizes publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
