| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.527 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.315 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.222 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.439 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.600 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.523 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.461 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.476 | -0.245 |
Mehmet Akif Ersoy University demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.223 that indicates performance generally superior to the national average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of output in institutional journals and redundant publications, alongside effective mitigation of hyper-authorship risks, which are more prevalent nationally. This solid foundation is a key asset. However, a notable vulnerability exists in the rate of publication in discontinued journals, which presents a medium risk and is higher than the national benchmark. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university holds strong national positions in several key areas, including Veterinary (13th), Psychology (14th), and Arts and Humanities (30th). The institution's commitment to integrity largely supports its mission to produce research for the "benefit of society" and integrate "global values." Yet, the identified risk in publication channel selection could undermine this mission by associating the university's output with low-quality venues, contradicting the pursuit of scientific excellence and reliable problem-solving. To fully align its practices with its vision, the university should build on its strong integrity framework by implementing targeted training and enhanced due diligence protocols for journal selection.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.527, a value that is statistically identical to the national average of -0.526. This alignment indicates that the university's collaborative and affiliation practices are perfectly in line with the expected norms for its context and size. The data shows no signals of disproportionate rates that could suggest strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” Instead, the observed level is consistent with legitimate and conventional academic engagement, such as researcher mobility, dual appointments, or standard partnerships.
With a Z-score of -0.315, the institution demonstrates a lower rate of retracted publications compared to the national average of -0.173. This prudent profile suggests that the university's internal processes are managed with more rigor than the national standard. The data does not point to systemic failures in pre-publication quality control. Instead, the lower-than-average rate indicates that the institution's integrity culture and methodological oversight are effectively minimizing the occurrence of errors or malpractice that could lead to retractions, thereby safeguarding its scientific record.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is -0.222, which is notably lower than the national average of -0.119. This reflects a prudent and healthy citation profile, suggesting that the university manages its citation practices with greater rigor than the national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's controlled rate indicates it successfully avoids the risks of scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' This demonstrates that the university's academic influence is validated by the broader external community rather than being inflated by internal dynamics, fostering robust and globally integrated research lines.
The university shows a Z-score of 0.439 in this indicator, significantly higher than the national average of 0.179. This result suggests the institution has a high exposure to this risk and is more prone to showing alert signals than its peers across the country. A high proportion of publications in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score 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 severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.600, which is exceptionally low, particularly when contrasted with the national average of 0.074 (a medium-risk signal). This demonstrates significant institutional resilience, as internal control mechanisms appear to be effectively mitigating systemic risks related to authorship inflation that are more common in the national context. The university's practices seem to successfully distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and 'honorary' or political authorship, thereby upholding individual accountability and transparency in its scientific contributions.
The institution's Z-score of -0.523 is considerably lower than the national average of -0.064, indicating a prudent and sustainable impact profile. This result suggests that the university's scientific prestige is structurally sound and not overly dependent on external partners for impact. A narrow gap, as seen here, reflects strong internal capacity and intellectual leadership, demonstrating that the institution's excellence metrics are a direct result of its own research capabilities rather than just strategic positioning in collaborations led by others. This fosters long-term scientific autonomy and sustainability.
With a Z-score of -0.461, the institution's rate of hyperprolific authors is statistically aligned with the national average of -0.430. This indicates a level of risk that is normal and expected for its context. The data does not suggest significant imbalances between quantity and quality. While high productivity can be a sign of leadership, the university's current profile does not raise alarms about potential issues like coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, reflecting a balanced approach to academic productivity that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution has a Z-score of -0.268, marking a very low-risk profile that contrasts sharply with the national average of 0.119 (a medium-risk level). This demonstrates a form of preventive isolation, where the university actively avoids replicating risk dynamics observed elsewhere in its environment. By minimizing its dependence on in-house journals, the institution effectively sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This commitment to independent external peer review enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, ensuring that its scientific output is validated through standard competitive channels.
The institution's Z-score of -0.476 signifies a very low risk of redundant output, a rate that is healthier than the national average of -0.245. This low-profile consistency demonstrates an absence of risk signals that aligns well with the national standard, while also outperforming it. The data suggests that the university's researchers are not engaging in data fragmentation or 'salami slicing' to artificially inflate productivity. This practice upholds the integrity of the scientific record by prioritizing the publication of significant new knowledge over sheer volume, thus contributing constructively to the academic ecosystem.
