| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.248 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.296 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.358 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.380 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.612 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.637 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.446 | -0.245 |
Zonguldak Bulent Ecevit University demonstrates a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.458 that indicates a performance significantly superior to the global average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptional control over authorship practices, its scientific autonomy, and its commitment to external validation, with very low risk signals in the rates of Multiple Affiliations, Hyperprolific Authors, Impact Gap, and Output in Institutional Journals. The only notable vulnerability is a medium-risk exposure to publication in discontinued journals, which exceeds the national average. These strong integrity indicators provide a solid foundation for the university's academic excellence, particularly in its highest-ranking thematic areas according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, such as Physics and Astronomy, Mathematics, and Computer Science. This commitment to ethical research directly supports the university's mission to "contribute to science, technology, culture and art on both national and international levels." However, the risk associated with discontinued journals could undermine this international ambition by associating the institution's output with low-quality channels, which is inconsistent with the mission's call for excellence. To fully align its practices with its vision, the university is advised to maintain its current high standards of governance while implementing targeted training to improve due diligence in the selection of publication venues.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.248, a value indicating a significantly lower risk than the national average of -0.526. This demonstrates a clear and transparent affiliation policy that aligns with the low-risk national context. The virtual absence of risk signals suggests that the university's collaborative framework is well-defined, ensuring that affiliations are the legitimate result of researcher mobility or formal partnerships. This responsible management prevents the use of affiliations as a strategic tool to artificially inflate institutional credit, reflecting a culture of transparency and accountability.
With a Z-score of -0.296, the university shows a more favorable profile than the national average of -0.173. This prudent performance suggests that the institution's quality control mechanisms are more rigorous than the national standard. While retractions can sometimes reflect a healthy process of scientific self-correction, a consistently low rate indicates that pre-publication review processes are effective in preventing systemic failures. This points to a strong institutional culture of integrity that minimizes the risk of recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor.
The institution's Z-score of -0.358 is notably lower than the national average of -0.119, indicating a prudent and healthy citation pattern. This demonstrates that the university's research is well-integrated into the global scientific conversation and is validated by a broad external community. By avoiding the 'echo chambers' that can result from disproportionately high rates of self-citation, the institution ensures its academic influence is a reflection of genuine international recognition rather than being oversized by internal dynamics, thereby preventing the risk of endogamous impact inflation.
The university's Z-score of 0.380 is higher than the national average of 0.179, indicating a heightened exposure to this particular risk factor compared to its peers. A high proportion of publications in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This pattern suggests that a portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, which exposes the institution to severe reputational risks. This finding signals an urgent need to strengthen information literacy and guidance for researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of -0.612, the university displays strong institutional resilience, effectively mitigating a risk that is more prevalent at the national level (Z-score: 0.074). The institution's low rate of hyper-authorship indicates that its governance and control mechanisms are successful in distinguishing between necessary, large-scale scientific collaborations and questionable practices like 'honorary' or political authorship. This commitment to transparency and individual accountability in crediting contributions serves as a firewall against systemic pressures that can dilute research integrity.
The institution's Z-score of -1.637 is exceptionally low, positioning it far more favorably than the national average of -0.064. This result is a powerful indicator of scientific autonomy and structural strength. It demonstrates that the university's scientific prestige is not dependent on external partners but is driven by its own internal capacity for high-impact research. The minimal gap between its overall impact and the impact of work led by its own researchers confirms that excellence is a result of real internal capabilities, mitigating any risk of a reputation built on collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership.
The university's Z-score of -1.413 signals a complete absence of this risk, a performance significantly stronger than the national average of -0.430. This indicates a healthy institutional environment where a balance between quantity and quality is maintained. The data suggests the university is free from dynamics that can lead to extreme individual publication volumes, such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without meaningful participation. This reinforces a culture where the integrity of the scientific record is prioritized over the inflation of productivity metrics.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the university effectively isolates itself from a risk that is present at the national level (Z-score: 0.119). This preventive stance demonstrates a clear commitment to independent, external peer review. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the institution sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production undergoes standard competitive validation, which enhances its global visibility and confirms that internal channels are not used as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication records.
The institution's Z-score of -0.446 is lower than the national average of -0.245, reflecting a prudent approach to publication ethics. This indicates that the university manages this risk with greater rigor than its national peers. The low incidence of redundant output suggests a research culture focused on producing coherent, significant studies rather than artificially inflating productivity by fragmenting data into 'minimal publishable units.' This responsible practice upholds the integrity of the scientific evidence base and respects the peer review system by prioritizing the generation of new knowledge over sheer volume.
