| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.189 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.165 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.126 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.155 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.818 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.588 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.264 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
2.728 | -0.245 |
Duzce University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.127 indicating a performance that is generally aligned with sound research practices. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in areas of publication strategy, showing a commendable ability to avoid discontinued or predatory journals and a strong preference for external validation over institutional channels. These positive aspects are complemented by notable thematic leadership, as evidenced by SCImago Institutions Rankings data, which places the university among the top national performers in key areas such as Mathematics (7th), Computer Science (9th), Business, Management and Accounting (16th), and Engineering (20th). However, this solid foundation is contrasted by critical vulnerabilities in publication and authorship dynamics. Medium-risk signals in Institutional Self-Citation and Hyperprolific Authors, and a significant-risk flag in Redundant Output, suggest that internal pressures for productivity may be compromising research quality. These practices directly challenge the university's mission to create "innovative, entrepreneurial, universal knowledge and value," as they prioritize volume over substantive contribution. To fully align its operational conduct with its strategic vision, it is recommended that the university implement targeted training and review policies focused on authorship ethics and publication integrity, thereby safeguarding its academic reputation and ensuring its contributions are both valuable and virtuous.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.189, a value indicating very low risk and positioning it favorably against the national average of -0.526. This result suggests a culture of clear and transparent affiliation reporting that is even more rigorous than the national standard. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the university's exceptionally low rate provides strong assurance against strategic practices like “affiliation shopping,” reinforcing the integrity of its institutional credit and partnerships.
With a Z-score of -0.165, the institution's performance is statistically aligned with the national average of -0.173, reflecting a normal and expected level of risk for its context. Retractions are complex events, and this low score indicates that the university's post-publication corrections are within a standard range, not signaling any systemic failure in its pre-publication quality control. The data suggests that the institution's mechanisms for ensuring methodological rigor are functioning consistently with its national peers.
The institution displays a Z-score of 0.126, a medium-risk signal that moderately deviates from the low-risk national benchmark of -0.119. This indicates a greater sensitivity to internal citation practices compared to its peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting ongoing research lines. However, this elevated rate warrants a review, as it may signal the formation of scientific 'echo chambers' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This trend could lead to an endogamous inflation of impact, where academic influence is shaped more by internal dynamics than by recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution demonstrates notable resilience with a Z-score of -0.155, a low-risk value that contrasts sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.179. This finding suggests that the university's control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk prevalent in the country. The data indicates a high level of due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, successfully avoiding media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice protects the institution from severe reputational damage and reflects a strong commitment to information literacy and the responsible use of research resources.
With a Z-score of -0.818, the institution maintains a low-risk profile in hyper-authorship, effectively filtering out a risk dynamic that is more common at the national level (Z-score of 0.074). This suggests robust governance regarding authorship practices. The university appears to successfully distinguish between necessary, large-scale collaboration typical of 'Big Science' and questionable practices like author list inflation. This control helps maintain individual accountability and transparency, preventing the dilution of intellectual contribution through 'honorary' or political authorship.
The institution shows a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.588, which is significantly lower and thus more favorable than the national average of -0.064. This result indicates that the university manages its collaborative processes with greater rigor than the national standard, demonstrating a strong internal capacity for generating impactful research. A low gap suggests that its scientific prestige is structural and sustainable, stemming from its own intellectual leadership rather than being dependent on the influence of external partners. This reflects a mature research ecosystem where excellence is a result of genuine internal capabilities.
A Z-score of 0.264 places the institution in the medium-risk category, a moderate deviation from the low-risk national standard of -0.430. This discrepancy suggests the university is more sensitive than its peers to factors driving extreme publication volumes. While high productivity can be legitimate, this indicator alerts to a potential imbalance between quantity and quality. It points to the risk that practices such as coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or assigning authorship without meaningful participation may be occurring, prioritizing metric-based performance over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution achieves a state of preventive isolation with a Z-score of -0.268, a very low-risk signal that stands in stark contrast to the medium-risk national environment (Z-score of 0.119). This demonstrates a clear strategic choice to prioritize external, independent peer review over in-house publication channels. By not replicating the national trend, the university effectively avoids the conflicts of interest and risks of academic endogamy associated with an over-reliance on institutional journals, thereby enhancing the global visibility and competitive validation of its research output.
The institution's Z-score of 2.728 represents a significant-risk level, creating a severe discrepancy with the low-risk national average of -0.245. This atypical activity is a critical alert that requires a deep integrity assessment. Such a high value is a strong indicator of 'salami slicing,' the practice of fragmenting a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This behavior not only distorts the available scientific evidence and overburdens the peer-review system but also prioritizes publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge, demanding urgent review and intervention.
