| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.447 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.371 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.404 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.380 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
2.676 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.452 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.300 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.422 | -0.245 |
Beykent University presents a complex scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of 0.320 that reflects a combination of significant strengths and areas requiring strategic attention. The institution demonstrates exemplary performance in indicators related to academic openness and external validation, with very low rates of institutional self-citation and publication in its own journals. These results suggest a culture that actively seeks global scrutiny and avoids insular practices. However, this positive foundation is contrasted by notable risks, particularly a significant rate of hyper-authored output and medium-level alerts in multiple affiliations, redundant output, and the selection of publication venues. Thematically, SCImago Institutions Rankings data highlights the university's competitive positioning within Turkey, particularly in Arts and Humanities (ranked 17th), Social Sciences (75th), and Economics, Econometrics and Finance (79th). To fully align its research practices with its mission of fostering professionals with "intellectual discipline" and "ethical values," it is crucial to address the identified vulnerabilities. Practices that prioritize publication volume over substance, such as potential authorship inflation or data fragmentation, could undermine the very principles of critical thinking and integrity the university aims to instill. A proactive focus on enhancing research quality assurance will be essential to safeguard its reputation and ensure its scientific contributions genuinely serve the "benefit of the society."
The institution's Z-score of 1.447 for multiple affiliations shows a moderate deviation from the national context, where the average Z-score is -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, the university's higher rate suggests a need for review. This value could signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping,” a practice that warrants closer examination to ensure all affiliations are substantive and reflect genuine collaboration.
With a Z-score of -0.371, the institution demonstrates a prudent profile regarding retracted publications, performing with more rigor than the national standard (Z-score: -0.173). This low rate is a positive indicator of the robustness of its pre-publication quality control mechanisms. Retractions can be complex, but a value below the national average suggests that the university's integrity culture and methodological supervision are effective in preventing the systemic errors or malpractice that often lead to such outcomes, reinforcing the reliability of its scientific record.
The university exhibits an exceptionally low rate of institutional self-citation, with a Z-score of -1.404, which is well below the already low national average of -0.119. This absence of risk signals demonstrates a low-profile consistency that aligns with the national standard for academic openness. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this remarkably low value confirms that the institution successfully avoids scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' It is a strong indicator that the university's academic influence is built on broad recognition from the global community rather than being inflated by internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of 0.380 for publications in discontinued journals indicates a high exposure to this risk, surpassing the national average of 0.179. This suggests the university is more prone than its peers to channel research into outlets that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. A high proportion of output in such journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This pattern exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and points to an urgent need for enhanced information literacy among its researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of 2.676, the university shows a significant rate of hyper-authored output, a figure that accentuates a vulnerability already present in the national system (Z-score: 0.074). This suggests the institution is not merely reflecting a national trend but is amplifying it. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, this high value outside of those fields is a strong indicator of potential author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability and transparency. It serves as a critical signal to investigate whether these patterns stem from necessary massive collaboration or from 'honorary' authorship practices that compromise research integrity.
The institution presents a Z-score of 1.452 in its impact gap, a moderate deviation that signals greater sensitivity to this risk compared to the national average of -0.064. This wide positive gap—where overall impact is notably higher than the impact of research led by the institution—signals a potential sustainability risk. It suggests that a significant portion of the university's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, rather than stemming from its own structural capacity. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics are the result of genuine internal innovation or a reliance on collaborations where the institution does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The university's Z-score of 0.300 for hyperprolific authors marks a moderate deviation from the national standard (Z-score: -0.430), indicating a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This elevated indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship, 'salami slicing,' or the assignment of authorship without real participation. These are dynamics that prioritize metric performance over the integrity of the scientific record and warrant a review of authorship policies.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.268 for output in its own journals, a very low value that signals a preventive isolation from the risk dynamics observed nationally (Z-score: 0.119). This demonstrates that the university does not replicate the trend of relying on internal publication channels. By avoiding excessive dependence on its in-house journals, the institution mitigates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures its scientific production consistently undergoes independent external peer review, thereby strengthening its global visibility and competitive validation.
With a Z-score of 1.422, the institution's rate of redundant output shows a moderate deviation from the national context (Z-score: -0.245), suggesting a greater sensitivity to this risk factor. Massive and recurring bibliographic overlap between publications often indicates data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' This elevated value alerts to the potential practice of dividing coherent studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. Such a tendency not only distorts the available scientific evidence but also overburdens the peer review system, prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
