| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.798 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.127 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.414 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.136 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.397 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.007 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.973 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.821 | -0.245 |
Giresun University presents a balanced scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.133 indicating a performance that is generally aligned with national standards but with distinct areas of excellence and specific vulnerabilities requiring strategic attention. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in governance, particularly with a very low incidence of hyperprolific authors and a notable avoidance of over-reliance on institutional journals, a practice that sets it apart from national trends. These strengths are complemented by strong research positioning in key thematic areas, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings, including top national placements in Environmental Science, Dentistry, and Agricultural and Biological Sciences. However, this profile is counterbalanced by medium-risk indicators in institutional self-citation, redundant output (salami slicing), and hyper-authorship, which suggest a focus on publication volume that may conflict with its mission to train "solution-producers" and make "sustainable contributions." To fully realize its goal of contributing to national development and human life, the university is encouraged to leverage its robust governance frameworks to mitigate these risks, ensuring that its pursuit of academic excellence is built upon a foundation of unquestionable scientific integrity and impactful, rather than merely numerous, contributions.
With a Z-score of -0.798, Giresun University demonstrates a lower rate of multiple affiliations compared to the national average of -0.526. This prudent profile suggests that the institution manages its affiliation processes with greater rigor than the national standard. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the university's controlled rate indicates a healthy and transparent approach to institutional credit, effectively avoiding practices like "affiliation shopping" and ensuring that its academic footprint is accurately represented.
The institution's Z-score for retracted output is -0.127, which is statistically normal and closely aligned with the national average of -0.173. This alignment indicates that the university's rate of publication retractions is as expected for its context and size, showing no evidence of systemic failure in its pre-publication quality control mechanisms. Retractions are complex events, and the current low and stable rate suggests that the institution's processes for correcting the scientific record are functioning appropriately, without signaling any underlying vulnerability in its integrity culture.
Giresun University shows a Z-score of 0.414 in institutional self-citation, a moderate deviation that places it at a medium risk level, notably higher than the country's low-risk average of -0.119. This indicates a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this disproportionately high rate signals a potential for scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This trend warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be partially oversized by internal dynamics rather than by broader recognition from the global scientific community.
The university's Z-score for publications in discontinued journals is 0.136, a figure that reflects a systemic pattern observed across the country, which has an average score of 0.179. Both the institution and the nation operate at a medium risk level in this regard. This shared practice constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It indicates that a portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to reputational risks and suggesting a widespread need for improved information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality journals.
With a Z-score of 0.397, the institution demonstrates a higher exposure to hyper-authored publications compared to the national average of 0.074, even though both fall within the medium risk category. This suggests the university is more prone to this practice than its peers. Outside of 'Big Science' contexts where extensive author lists are legitimate, this pattern can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This signal warrants a closer examination of authorship practices to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and potentially 'honorary' or political authorship.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 0.007 for the gap between its total impact and the impact of research it leads, which represents a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.064. This score indicates that the university is more sensitive to this risk factor than its peers. A wide positive gap signals a potential sustainability risk, suggesting that its scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, rather than structural. This finding invites reflection on whether the institution's excellence metrics result from its own internal capacity and intellectual leadership or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it plays a secondary role.
Giresun University shows exceptional performance in this area, with a Z-score of -0.973, positioning it at a very low risk level and significantly below the country's already low-risk average of -0.430. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals is even more pronounced than the national standard. This result indicates a healthy institutional culture that prioritizes quality over excessive quantity, effectively avoiding the risks associated with hyperprolificacy, such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, and ensuring the integrity of its scientific record.
The university has a Z-score of -0.268 for output in its own journals, a very low-risk value that marks a significant and positive divergence from the national medium-risk average of 0.119. This demonstrates a form of preventive isolation, where the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on its in-house journals, the university mitigates potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production largely undergoes independent external peer review, thereby strengthening its global visibility and validating its research against competitive international standards.
With a Z-score of 0.821, the institution's rate of redundant output is at a medium risk level, representing a moderate deviation from the national low-risk average of -0.245. This indicates that the university is more sensitive to this risk factor than its peers. Massive and recurring bibliographic overlap between publications often indicates data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' This high value alerts to a potential practice of dividing coherent studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. Such a practice not only distorts the available scientific evidence but also overburdens the review system, prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
