| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.239 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.174 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.742 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.080 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.162 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.910 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.636 | -0.245 |
Amasya University presents a robust profile in scientific integrity, with an overall risk score of -0.387 that indicates a performance significantly healthier than the global average. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths in governance, particularly in maintaining scientific autonomy (Gap between leadership and total impact), promoting responsible authorship practices (Rate of Hyper-Authored Output and Rate of Hyperprolific Authors), and ensuring research undergoes external validation (Rate of Output in Institutional Journals). These strengths align perfectly with its mission to be a "model and leader in research" without compromising "ethical and scientific values." According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas nationally include Arts and Humanities, Psychology, and Medicine, which directly support its goal of contributing to the country's culture and health. However, two medium-risk indicators—the Rate of Redundant Output and the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals—require strategic attention. These vulnerabilities, if unaddressed, could undermine the institution's commitment to excellence by suggesting a focus on publication volume over substance and a lack of diligence in selecting dissemination channels. By addressing these specific areas, Amasya University can fully consolidate its position as a benchmark for integrity and responsible research in the region.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.239, positioning it in a very low-risk category and notably below the national average of -0.526. This result demonstrates a highly controlled and transparent approach to academic affiliations, surpassing the already low-risk standard observed across the country. The absence of risk signals suggests that the university's policies effectively prevent practices such as "affiliation shopping" or the strategic inflation of institutional credit. This low-profile consistency reinforces a culture where collaborations are based on genuine scientific partnership rather than metric-driven incentives.
With a Z-score of -0.174, the institution's rate of retractions is statistically normal and almost identical to the national average of -0.173. This alignment indicates that the university's performance is as expected for its context, reflecting a standard level of post-publication correction. Retractions are complex events, and this score does not suggest that quality control mechanisms are failing systemically. Instead, it points to a typical operational dynamic where occasional, honest corrections of the scientific record occur, which is a sign of responsible supervision rather than a systemic vulnerability in its integrity culture.
The institution's Z-score of -0.742 is well within the low-risk range and demonstrates a more prudent profile than the national average of -0.119. This indicates that the university manages its citation practices with greater rigor than the national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this lower rate suggests the institution successfully avoids the "echo chambers" that can arise from excessive self-validation. This prudent approach is a positive sign of integration with the global scientific community, where academic influence is built on external recognition rather than being inflated by internal dynamics.
Amasya University shows a Z-score of 0.080 in this indicator, which, while signaling a medium risk, reflects a more controlled performance compared to the national average of 0.179. This suggests a differentiated management approach, where the institution moderates a risk that appears more common across the country. Nevertheless, a medium-risk score constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It indicates that a portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to reputational risks and highlighting a need for improved information literacy to avoid "predatory" practices.
The institution's Z-score of -1.162 is in the very low-risk category, showcasing a preventive isolation from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score: 0.074). This result indicates that the university does not replicate the trend of author list inflation seen elsewhere in its environment. Such a low score is a strong positive signal, suggesting that authorship practices are well-governed, individual accountability is maintained, and "honorary" or political authorships are effectively discouraged, ensuring transparency in research contributions.
With a Z-score of -0.910, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low and therefore very healthy gap, performing significantly better than the national low-risk average of -0.064. This absence of risk signals aligns with a national standard of good practice but elevates it further, pointing to a high degree of scientific autonomy and sustainability. The result strongly suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and driven by its own intellectual leadership, not dependent on external partners. This reflects a robust internal capacity for generating high-impact research, a key indicator of a mature and self-sufficient academic entity.
The university has a Z-score of -1.413, placing it in the very low-risk category and far below the national average of -0.430. This demonstrates low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals exceeds the already low-risk national standard. The lack of extreme individual publication volumes suggests a healthy institutional balance between quantity and quality. This is a strong indicator that the university's culture discourages practices such as coercive authorship or "salami slicing," prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over the simple inflation of metrics.
Displaying a Z-score of -0.268, the institution operates with a very low risk in this area, effectively isolating itself from the medium-risk trend observed nationally (Z-score: 0.119). This preventive stance demonstrates that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics of its environment. By minimizing its reliance on in-house journals, the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review. This practice enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, preventing the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication.
The institution's Z-score of 1.636 indicates a medium-risk level, representing a moderate deviation from the low-risk national standard of -0.245. This score suggests the university shows a greater sensitivity to this particular risk factor than its peers. A high value alerts to the potential practice of dividing coherent studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, a behavior known as 'salami slicing.' This practice can distort the available scientific evidence and overburden the review system, signaling a need to reinforce policies that prioritize the publication of significant new knowledge over sheer volume.
