| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.166 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.353 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.971 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.572 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.836 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.560 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.051 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
1.750 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.724 | -0.245 |
Yuzuncu Yil University presents a balanced integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.023 that reflects a combination of significant strengths and specific areas requiring strategic attention. The institution demonstrates exemplary control in areas such as the Rate of Hyperprolific Authors and Rate of Multiple Affiliations, indicating robust governance that aligns with or exceeds national standards. These strengths provide a solid foundation for its notable research performance, particularly in its top-ranked thematic areas within Turkey, including Veterinary (15th), Physics and Astronomy (20th), and Mathematics (32nd), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, this profile is contrasted by medium-risk indicators in Institutional Self-Citation, Output in Institutional Journals, and Redundant Output, which suggest vulnerabilities related to academic endogamy and pressure for publication volume. While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, these risks pose a potential challenge to universal academic values of excellence and social responsibility, as they can undermine the external validation and global impact of its research. A focused effort to mitigate these specific vulnerabilities will be crucial to ensure that the university's scientific practices fully reflect the high quality of its strongest research domains, thereby safeguarding its long-term reputation and impact.
The institution exhibits a very low risk profile with a Z-score of -1.166, which is well below the national average of -0.526. This demonstrates a consistent and low-profile approach, where the absence of risk signals is in complete alignment with the national standard. The data suggests that the university's affiliations are managed transparently, avoiding any patterns that could be interpreted as strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping.”
With a Z-score of -0.353, the institution maintains a low-risk profile that is more favorable than the national average of -0.173. This prudent positioning suggests that the university manages its research processes with greater rigor than the national standard. While retractions can sometimes reflect responsible error correction, a consistently low rate indicates that the institution's pre-publication quality control mechanisms are functioning effectively, preventing the systemic failures or recurring malpractice that a higher rate might signal.
The institution's Z-score of 0.971 places it in the medium-risk category, representing a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.119. This indicates a greater sensitivity to risk factors than its peers. While a certain level of self-citation is natural for continuing research lines, this disproportionately high rate signals a potential for scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' It warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the broader global community.
The university shows a medium-risk Z-score of 0.572, which is significantly higher than the national medium-risk average of 0.179. This indicates a high level of exposure, making the institution more prone to alert signals than its peers. A high proportion of publications in such journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This pattern suggests that a significant portion of its scientific output is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and highlighting an urgent need for improved information literacy to avoid 'predatory' practices.
With a low-risk Z-score of -0.836, the institution demonstrates notable resilience compared to the medium-risk national context (Z-score of 0.074). This suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the country's systemic risks related to authorship. The data indicates that the institution successfully distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration, typical in 'Big Science,' and questionable practices like author list inflation, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency.
The institution's Z-score of -0.560 is in the low-risk category and indicates a more prudent profile than the national average of -0.064. A low score in this indicator is a positive sign, suggesting that the university's scientific prestige is not overly dependent on external partners. This reflects a healthy balance where excellence metrics appear to result from genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, rather than from a strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not lead.
The university's Z-score of -1.051 signifies a very low risk, consistent with the low-risk national environment (Z-score of -0.430). This low-profile consistency and absence of risk signals indicate a healthy balance between productivity and quality. The institution shows no signs of the extreme individual publication volumes that can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution, thereby avoiding potential risks such as coercive authorship or the prioritization of metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of 1.750 is in the medium-risk range and reveals a high exposure to this risk factor, as it is substantially higher than the national average of 0.119. This excessive dependence on in-house journals raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. The high score warns that a significant portion of scientific production might be bypassing independent external peer review, which could limit global visibility and suggests the possible use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate CVs without standard competitive validation.
With a medium-risk Z-score of 0.724, the institution shows a moderate deviation from the low-risk national standard of -0.245. This suggests the center has a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. A high value in this indicator alerts to the potential practice of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' where a coherent study is divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This practice not only distorts the available scientific evidence but also overburdens the review system by prioritizing volume over significant new knowledge.
