| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.889 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.371 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.867 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.033 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.426 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.588 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.591 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.848 | -0.245 |
Ankara Yildirim Beyazit University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.344 that indicates a performance significantly stronger than many of its national peers. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of Multiple Affiliations, Institutional Self-Citation, and publication in its own journals, demonstrating a clear commitment to external validation and transparency. Furthermore, the university shows remarkable resilience, effectively mitigating national risk trends related to publishing in discontinued journals and hyper-authorship. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, this solid governance foundation supports strong academic performance, particularly in thematic areas such as Business, Management and Accounting; Economics, Econometrics and Finance; Mathematics; and Social Sciences, where it holds top national rankings. The only significant vulnerability detected is a medium-risk level for Redundant Output, which suggests a moderate deviation from national practices. This specific risk, if unaddressed, could undermine the institution's commitment to academic excellence and social responsibility by prioritizing publication volume over substantive scientific contribution. The university's overall positive standing provides an excellent opportunity to focus strategic efforts on refining publication guidelines to address this single point of friction, thereby ensuring its operational integrity fully aligns with its mission of producing high-impact, reliable knowledge.
With an institutional Z-score of -0.889 compared to the national average of -0.526, the university demonstrates a very low and consistent risk profile in this area. This alignment with the national standard, but at an even lower level, indicates that the institution's approach to researcher affiliations is transparent and well-managed. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the university's exceptionally low rate confirms the absence of signals related to strategic "affiliation shopping" or attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit, reflecting a culture of clear and honest attribution.
The institution's Z-score of -0.371 is notably lower than the national average of -0.173, suggesting a prudent and rigorous management of its scientific quality control. This indicates that the university's pre-publication review mechanisms are more effective than the national standard. A rate significantly lower than its peers is a strong signal of a healthy integrity culture, suggesting that instances of methodological error or potential malpractice are successfully minimized before they can damage the scientific record, thereby reinforcing the reliability of its research output.
The university maintains a Z-score of -0.867, which is exceptionally low when compared to the national Z-score of -0.119. This demonstrates a consistent and healthy practice of seeking external validation for its research. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's very low rate confirms it successfully avoids the risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers.' This practice ensures that its academic influence is genuinely built upon recognition from the global scientific community rather than being inflated by endogamous or internal dynamics.
Ankara Yildirim Beyazit University shows significant institutional resilience, with a low-risk Z-score of -0.033 in a national context that presents a medium-risk Z-score of 0.179. This suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms and researcher guidance are effectively mitigating a systemic risk prevalent in the country. By successfully avoiding channels that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, the institution acts as a firewall, protecting its reputation and ensuring its research resources are not wasted on predatory or low-quality dissemination practices.
The institution demonstrates effective filtering of national risk practices, maintaining a low Z-score of -0.426 while the country average sits at a medium-risk level of 0.074. This disparity indicates that the university successfully upholds standards of transparency and accountability in authorship that are stricter than the national norm. By resisting the trend of author list inflation, the institution ensures that credit is assigned based on meaningful contributions, distinguishing its collaborative practices from potentially 'honorary' or political authorship seen elsewhere in the system.
With a Z-score of -0.588, significantly lower than the national average of -0.064, the institution demonstrates a prudent profile in building its scientific prestige. This indicates a healthier balance between the impact generated from collaborations and that from research led internally. The smaller gap suggests that the university's scientific excellence is increasingly structural and endogenous, stemming from its own intellectual leadership rather than being overly dependent on external partners. This points toward a sustainable model for long-term impact and academic sovereignty.
The university's Z-score of -0.591 is considerably lower than the national average of -0.430, indicating a more prudent management of research productivity. This suggests a strong institutional focus on the balance between quantity and quality. By maintaining a low rate of hyperprolific authors, the university effectively mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thereby prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over the pursuit of inflated publication metrics.
The institution exhibits a clear case of preventive isolation, with a very low Z-score of -0.268 in stark contrast to the country's medium-risk Z-score of 0.119. This shows the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. By avoiding over-reliance on its own journals, the institution actively sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This strategic choice ensures its scientific production is validated through independent, external peer review, enhancing its global visibility and credibility.
This indicator signals a moderate deviation from the national standard and is an area requiring attention. The institution's Z-score of 0.848 is at a medium-risk level, while the country's average is a low-risk -0.245, indicating the university shows a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. A high value alerts to the potential practice of fragmenting a coherent study into 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This 'salami slicing' can distort the available scientific evidence and overburden the review system, prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge. A review of publication incentives and author guidelines is recommended.
