| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.137 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.390 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.983 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.190 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.741 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-2.047 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -0.245 |
Hasan Kalyoncu University demonstrates an exceptionally strong scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.609. This performance is characterized by a remarkable absence of risk signals across eight of the nine indicators analyzed, positioning the institution as a benchmark of good practice within its national context. The primary strength lies in its robust internal governance, which effectively insulates it from several systemic risks prevalent in the country, particularly regarding authorship practices and publication channels. This commitment to integrity directly supports the university's academic prestige, evidenced by its outstanding national and regional rankings in key thematic areas such as Earth and Planetary Sciences (ranked #1 in Turkey) and Economics, Econometrics and Finance (ranked #7 in Turkey), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. The only area requiring attention is a moderate rate of publication in discontinued journals, a trend that mirrors the national average. While this single vulnerability does not currently overshadow the institution's excellent standing, addressing it is crucial to fully align its operational practices with its demonstrated commitment to academic excellence and social responsibility. The university is advised to leverage its solid foundation of integrity to refine its publication strategies, thereby ensuring its significant research contributions are disseminated through channels that fully match their quality and impact.
The institution presents a Z-score of -1.137, a value indicating a very low incidence of this practice, which is even more conservative than the national average of -0.526. This result demonstrates a clear and consistent affiliation policy that aligns with the national standard. The absence of risk signals suggests that the university's collaborative framework is transparent and does not rely on strategies to artificially inflate institutional credit. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of researcher mobility or partnerships, the university's low rate confirms that its collaborative output is managed with clarity, avoiding any ambiguity related to "affiliation shopping."
With a Z-score of -0.390, the institution shows a near-zero rate of retracted publications, a figure that is well-aligned with the low-risk national average of -0.173. This consistency points to effective and reliable quality control mechanisms prior to publication. Retractions can sometimes signify responsible supervision in correcting honest errors, but a consistently low rate, as seen here, is a strong indicator of a healthy integrity culture. It suggests that methodological rigor and ethical oversight are successfully embedded in the research process, preventing the systemic failures that can lead to post-publication corrections.
The institution's Z-score of -0.983 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.119, indicating a very low rate of institutional self-citation. This performance underscores the university's strong integration within the global scientific community and the external validation of its research. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university's minimal reliance on it demonstrates that its academic influence is driven by broad external recognition rather than internal 'echo chambers.' This avoids any risk of endogamous impact inflation and confirms that the institution's work is validated by a diverse and independent audience.
The institution's Z-score of 0.190 places it at a medium risk level, closely mirroring the national average of 0.179. This alignment suggests that the university's performance reflects a systemic pattern or a shared challenge within the national research environment regarding the selection of publication venues. A high proportion of output in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence. This Z-score indicates that a portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to reputational risks. This shared vulnerability points to a need for enhanced information literacy across the national system to avoid channeling valuable research into 'predatory' or low-quality outlets.
With a Z-score of -0.741, the institution maintains a low rate of hyper-authored publications, contrasting with the medium-risk national average of 0.074. This demonstrates institutional resilience, suggesting that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a risk that is more pronounced at the country level. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, the university's controlled rate outside these areas indicates a commitment to transparency and accountability in authorship. This acts as an effective filter, ensuring that author lists accurately reflect meaningful contributions and avoiding practices like 'honorary' authorship.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -2.047, a very low value that is substantially better than the national average of -0.064. This result is a powerful indicator of scientific autonomy and sustainability. A wide positive gap can signal a dependency on external partners for impact, but the university's negative gap shows the opposite: its prestige is driven by strong internal capacity and intellectual leadership. This demonstrates that the institution's high-impact research is a result of its own structural capabilities, not merely a reflection of strategic positioning in collaborations led by others.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, reinforcing the low-risk profile observed in the national context (Z-score of -0.430). This near-total absence of hyperprolific authors signals a healthy institutional culture that prioritizes quality and scientific integrity over sheer volume. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme publication volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's data suggests a well-balanced environment, free from the pressures that can lead to coercive authorship or the division of work into minimal publishable units, thus protecting the integrity of its scientific record.
The institution has a Z-score of -0.268, indicating a very low reliance on its own journals, which contrasts sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.119. This demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, where the university deliberately avoids the risk dynamics observed in its environment. By prioritizing external, independent peer review, the institution effectively sidesteps the conflicts of interest and academic endogamy that can arise from excessive dependence on in-house journals. This strategy enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its research, confirming its commitment to meeting international standards of scientific scrutiny.
With a Z-score of -1.186, the institution shows a very low incidence of redundant publications, a rate that is significantly more conservative than the already low national average of -0.245. This low-profile consistency indicates a strong institutional norm of publishing complete, coherent studies. The data suggests that the university's researchers are not engaging in 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a single study into multiple minimal units to artificially inflate productivity. This commitment to presenting significant new knowledge in each publication upholds the integrity of the scientific record and respects the resources of the peer-review system.
