| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.443 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.051 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.056 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.529 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.717 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.690 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.421 | -0.245 |
Namik Kemal University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.286 that indicates a performance generally aligned with or exceeding national standards. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining very low-risk levels for the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, the Rate of Hyperprolific Authors, and the Rate of Output in Institutional Journals, showcasing a culture that prioritizes transparency and external validation. Data from the SCImago Institutions Rankings further highlights the university's competitive standing in key thematic areas, particularly in Economics, Econometrics and Finance (ranked 20th in Turkey), Veterinary (25th), and Computer Science (33rd). However, this strong foundation is challenged by medium-risk indicators in the Rate of Retracted Output and the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals. These vulnerabilities directly conflict with the university's mission to be "internationally advanced in... science and technology" and to give "great importance to research," as they suggest potential gaps in quality control and dissemination strategy that could undermine its reputation. To fully realize its mission, the university should leverage its clear governance strengths to implement targeted interventions that address these specific risk areas, thereby ensuring its research excellence is both impactful and unimpeachable.
With an institutional Z-score of -1.443, significantly below the national average of -0.526, Namik Kemal University demonstrates an exemplary and consistent approach to author affiliations. This very low-risk profile aligns perfectly with the national standard, indicating a complete absence of signals related to the strategic inflation of institutional credit. The data suggests that affiliations are managed with high transparency, reflecting legitimate researcher mobility and partnerships rather than any form of "affiliation shopping," reinforcing the institution's commitment to clear and honest academic representation.
The university's Z-score of 0.051 for retracted output marks a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.173. This discrepancy suggests the institution is more sensitive than its national peers to factors that can lead to publication retractions. A rate significantly higher than the average serves as an alert to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This finding suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing more frequently than elsewhere in the country, indicating that possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor may require immediate qualitative verification by management to safeguard its scientific reputation.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.056, which, while in the low-risk category, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.119. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants review before it escalates. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of research lines; however, this slightly elevated rate could signal the early stages of a scientific 'echo chamber' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. Continued monitoring is advisable to prevent the risk of endogamous impact inflation, ensuring the institution's academic influence is driven by global community recognition rather than internal dynamics.
With a Z-score of 0.529, the university shows high exposure to this risk, a level notably more pronounced than the national average of 0.179. This indicator is a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. The score indicates that a significant portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need for enhanced information literacy and stricter policies to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publications.
The university's Z-score of -0.717 is well within the low-risk range and contrasts favorably with the national medium-risk average of 0.074. This demonstrates institutional resilience, suggesting that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks of authorship inflation observed at the national level. The data indicates that the university successfully distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration in "Big Science" contexts and questionable "honorary" or political authorship practices, thereby upholding individual accountability and transparency in its research output.
The institution maintains a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.690, a figure that indicates more rigorous internal processes compared to the national standard of -0.064. This low score suggests that the university's scientific prestige is not overly dependent on external partners but is instead built upon strong, structural internal capacity. The healthy balance shown by this indicator is a positive sign of sustainability, reflecting that the institution's excellence metrics result from genuine intellectual leadership rather than just strategic positioning in collaborations.
With a Z-score of -1.413, far below the national average of -0.430, the university shows a consistent and low-risk profile in this area. This near-total absence of hyperprolific authors—individuals with publication volumes challenging the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution—is a strong positive signal. It indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, effectively avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, and reinforcing a culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over inflated metrics.
The university's Z-score of -0.268 signals a state of preventive isolation from a national trend, where the country average is a medium-risk 0.119. This stark difference shows the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics of academic endogamy observed elsewhere in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the university effectively sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review. This commitment enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, preventing the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate CVs.
The institution demonstrates a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.421, which is notably more rigorous than the national standard of -0.245. This indicates that the university manages its publication processes with greater care than its peers, actively discouraging the fragmentation of coherent studies into minimal publishable units. By maintaining a lower rate of redundant output, the institution promotes the generation of significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of productivity, thereby upholding the integrity of scientific evidence and reducing the burden on the peer-review system.
