| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.170 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.277 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.222 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.550 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.892 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.404 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.232 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.659 | -0.245 |
Usak University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.349 that indicates a performance significantly superior to the national standard. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths in mitigating risks associated with authorship and publication channels, particularly in its very low rates of hyperprolific authors, output in institutional journals, and redundant publications. These results reflect a mature research culture that prioritizes quality and ethical rigor. The primary vulnerability identified is a medium-risk, high-exposure rate of publication in discontinued journals, which diverges from its otherwise excellent performance. Thematically, the university shows notable strength in areas such as Dentistry, Economics, Econometrics and Finance, and Arts and Humanities, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. This strong integrity foundation directly supports its mission to provide "qualified education" and foster "scientific perspectives." However, the identified risk in selecting publication venues could undermine this mission by exposing its community to predatory practices, contradicting the goal of producing "well-equipped individuals." It is recommended that the university leverage its solid governance framework to implement targeted training and policies on publication venue selection, thereby securing its reputational standing and ensuring its contributions to national development are built on a foundation of unquestionable quality.
With a Z-score of -1.170, the institution's rate of multiple affiliations is exceptionally low, positioning it well below the national average of -0.526. This demonstrates a clear and transparent affiliation policy, reflecting an environment where institutional credit is attributed straightforwardly. The complete absence of risk signals in this area suggests that the university effectively avoids practices like "affiliation shopping" used to inflate institutional credit, aligning with a national context of controlled affiliation practices and reinforcing a commitment to ethical research conduct.
The institution maintains a low rate of retracted output (Z-score: -0.277), performing with more rigor than the national standard (Z-score: -0.173). This prudent profile suggests that its internal quality control and supervision mechanisms are highly effective. While retractions can sometimes signify responsible error correction, this comparatively lower rate indicates a robust pre-publication review process that successfully minimizes systemic failures in methodological rigor or research integrity, thereby protecting the quality of the scientific record.
The university's rate of institutional self-citation is low (Z-score: -0.222) and more controlled than the national average (Z-score: -0.119). This prudent management of self-citation demonstrates a strong orientation towards external validation and global scientific dialogue. By avoiding disproportionately high rates, the institution mitigates the risk of creating 'echo chambers' or endogamous impact inflation, ensuring its academic influence is built on broad recognition from the international community rather than internal dynamics.
This indicator presents a significant area for improvement, with the institution showing a medium-risk Z-score of 0.550, which is notably higher than the national average of 0.179. This high exposure suggests that the university is more prone than its peers to publishing in questionable venues. This pattern constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, as a significant portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. This exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and signals an urgent need for enhanced information literacy to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution displays notable institutional resilience, maintaining a low rate of hyper-authored output (Z-score: -0.892) in a national context where this is a medium-risk issue (Z-score: 0.074). This suggests that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk present in the country. This strong performance indicates a culture that values transparency and individual accountability, successfully filtering out practices like 'honorary' authorship and ensuring that author lists accurately reflect meaningful contributions.
With a Z-score of -0.404, which is substantially better than the national average of -0.064, the institution demonstrates a prudent and sustainable impact model. The negative value indicates that the impact of research led by the university's own authors is strong and not dependent on external partners for prestige. This performance suggests that its scientific excellence is structural and stems from genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, ensuring long-term academic sovereignty and sustainability.
The university's rate of hyperprolific authorship is virtually non-existent, with an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.232 compared to the low-risk national score of -0.430. This absence of risk signals is a strong indicator of a healthy research environment that fosters a balance between quantity and quality. It suggests the institution is free from dynamics that can lead to coercive authorship or data fragmentation, prioritizing meaningful intellectual contribution over the inflation of publication metrics.
The institution demonstrates a clear policy of preventive isolation from national risk dynamics in this area. While the country shows a medium-risk level (Z-score: 0.119), the university's rate is very low (Z-score: -0.268). This indicates a strong commitment to independent, external peer review, thereby avoiding the conflicts of interest and academic endogamy associated with excessive reliance on in-house journals. This practice enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, ensuring its output is validated through standard competitive channels.
The institution maintains a very low rate of redundant output (Z-score: -0.659), performing significantly better than the low-risk national benchmark (Z-score: -0.245). This near-total absence of signals for 'salami slicing' points to a culture that values the publication of coherent and impactful studies over the artificial inflation of productivity. This commitment to substance over volume protects the integrity of the scientific record and reflects a responsible use of the academic review system.
