| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.501 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.052 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.299 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.246 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
1.084 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.130 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.468 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.858 | -0.245 |
Necmettin Erbakan University presents a robust and generally healthy scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.100 that indicates strong alignment with best practices. The institution's primary strengths lie in its clear avoidance of academic endogamy, as evidenced by its exceptionally low rates of publication in institutional journals and minimal signals of redundant output (salami slicing). These factors suggest a culture that prioritizes external validation and substantive research contributions. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a high exposure to publishing in discontinued journals and a notable rate of hyper-authored output, which are more pronounced than national averages. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university demonstrates significant thematic strengths, ranking prominently within Turkey in fields such as Arts and Humanities (6th), Psychology (9th), and Mathematics (14th). While the institution's specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, these risk indicators—particularly those related to publication channels and authorship practices—could potentially undermine a universal academic mission of achieving excellence and upholding social responsibility. By addressing these vulnerabilities, the university can better safeguard its reputation and ensure its research impact is both credible and sustainable, reinforcing its position as a leading national institution.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is -0.501, which is statistically normal and closely aligned with the national average of -0.526. This alignment suggests that the university's patterns of co-affiliation are consistent with the expected collaborative dynamics within its national context. While multiple affiliations can sometimes be used to inflate institutional credit, the current low-risk level indicates that the university's collaborative activities are well within standard parameters, reflecting legitimate researcher mobility and partnerships rather than strategic "affiliation shopping."
With a Z-score of -0.052, the institution's rate of retractions is low but slightly more pronounced than the national average of -0.173. This subtle difference suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants proactive monitoring. Retractions can signify responsible supervision when they involve honest error correction. However, a rate that edges above the national baseline, even if still low, could be an early signal that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be facing challenges. This metric serves as a reminder to continually reinforce methodological rigor to prevent any potential escalation.
The institution demonstrates a prudent profile in its citation practices, with a Z-score of -0.299, which is notably lower and more rigorous than the national average of -0.119. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this institution's lower-than-average rate indicates a healthy reliance on external validation and a minimal risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers.' This result suggests that the university's academic influence is being recognized by the global community, not just inflated by internal dynamics, reinforcing the external credibility of its work.
The university shows a high exposure to this risk, with a Z-score of 0.246 that is more pronounced than the national average of 0.179. This medium-risk signal is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. A significant proportion of scientific production channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards exposes the institution to severe reputational risks. This finding suggests an urgent need to enhance information literacy and provide guidance to researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publication practices.
With a Z-score of 1.084, the institution exhibits a high exposure to hyper-authorship, a rate significantly greater than the national average of 0.074. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' fields, this pronounced signal outside of those contexts can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. This metric serves as a strong signal to investigate whether these patterns stem from necessary massive collaborations or from 'honorary' or political authorship practices that could compromise transparency and the integrity of the research record.
The institution exhibits a prudent and self-sufficient profile, with a Z-score of -0.130, indicating a smaller gap than the national average of -0.064. A wide positive gap can signal that an institution's prestige is dependent on external partners rather than its own intellectual leadership. This university's favorable score suggests that its scientific prestige is structural and sustainable, resulting from genuine internal capacity. It demonstrates that the institution effectively exercises intellectual leadership in its collaborations, building an impact that is both authentic and endogenous.
The institution's Z-score of -0.468 for hyperprolific authors is statistically normal and consistent with the national average of -0.430. This indicates that the publication volumes of its researchers are within expected parameters for its context. While extreme individual productivity can sometimes point to risks like coercive authorship or a focus on quantity over quality, the university's current profile does not raise any alarms. The data suggests a healthy balance between productivity and the capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution.
The institution demonstrates a clear preventive isolation from a risk dynamic observed nationally, with a Z-score of -0.268 (very low risk) in stark contrast to the country's medium-risk average of 0.119. This is a significant strength. By not relying on in-house journals, the university effectively avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, where production might bypass independent external peer review. This practice reinforces the institution's commitment to global visibility and competitive validation, ensuring its research is assessed by rigorous international standards.
With a Z-score of -0.858, the institution shows a near-total absence of risk signals for redundant publications, performing even better than the low-risk national standard of -0.245. This low-profile consistency underscores a strong commitment to scientific integrity. A high rate of bibliographic overlap often indicates 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a study into minimal units to inflate productivity. This institution's exemplary score suggests its research culture prioritizes the publication of coherent, significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of output volume.
