Siirt University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Siirt University presents a complex scientific integrity profile, marked by a clear division between areas of exceptional control and areas requiring urgent strategic intervention. With an overall score of 0.683, the institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining low rates of hyper-authorship, redundant publications, and output in institutional journals, indicating robust internal governance in these specific domains. However, these positive aspects are counterbalanced by significant risks in the rates of retracted output and hyperprolific authors, alongside medium-level alerts for multiple affiliations and institutional self-citation. These vulnerabilities directly challenge the university's mission to produce knowledge "in the light of universal values" and for the "benefit of humanity," as questionable integrity practices undermine the credibility and social value of its research. The institution's strong national rankings in key areas such as Physics and Astronomy, Chemistry, Veterinary, and Engineering, as per SCImago Institutions Rankings data, provide a solid foundation of academic excellence. To fully realize its mission, it is recommended that the university leverage these disciplinary strengths to champion a campus-wide culture of integrity, focusing on targeted training and policy review to mitigate the identified risks and ensure its contributions are both impactful and unimpeachable.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of 1.376 for this indicator shows a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.526. This suggests that the university exhibits a greater sensitivity to risk factors associated with multiple affiliations than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, a disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” The observed divergence from the national norm warrants a review to ensure that all declared affiliations are substantive and reflect genuine collaboration rather than being used solely for metric enhancement.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 0.906, the institution displays a significant rate of retracted publications, creating a severe discrepancy when compared to the low-risk national average of -0.173. This atypical risk activity is a critical alert that requires a deep integrity assessment. A high Z-score in this indicator suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. Beyond individual cases, a rate so far above the national baseline points to a vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that necessitates immediate qualitative verification by management.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of 0.331 reflects a moderate rate of self-citation, which deviates from the low national average of -0.119. This indicates that the university shows a greater tendency towards internal validation than is typical across the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this moderate deviation warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation. This pattern could foster 'echo chambers' where the institution's work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny, suggesting its academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 0.861 is notably higher than the national average of 0.179, even though both fall within a medium-risk category. This demonstrates that the university has a high exposure to this risk and is more prone to showing alert signals than its environment average. A high Z-score indicates that a significant portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This heightened vulnerability exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need for enhanced information literacy to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publication practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.128, the institution shows a very low rate of hyper-authored output, effectively isolating itself from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score: 0.074). This preventive isolation demonstrates that the university does not replicate the national trend toward potential author list inflation. The data suggests that authorship attribution is well-governed, successfully distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration in "Big Science" and problematic "honorary" authorship practices that can dilute individual accountability and transparency.

Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership

The institution exhibits a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.662, which is more favorable than the national average of -0.064. This indicates that the university manages its collaborative processes with more rigor than the national standard, ensuring its scientific prestige is not overly dependent on external partners. A low value suggests that its excellence metrics are derived from genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, rather than just strategic positioning in collaborations. This signals a sustainable and structurally sound research model where the institution's own contributions are central to its impact.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of 2.607 is at a significant level, creating a severe discrepancy with the low-risk national environment (Z-score: -0.430). This atypical risk activity is a critical anomaly that requires a deep integrity assessment. Extreme individual publication volumes challenge the limits of human capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution. A high indicator in this area alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 indicates a very low reliance on its own journals, representing a clear case of preventive isolation from the medium-risk trend observed nationally (Z-score: 0.119). This practice demonstrates a commitment to external validation and global visibility. By avoiding potential conflicts of interest where the institution acts as both judge and party, the university ensures its scientific production bypasses the risk of academic endogamy and is instead subjected to independent, competitive peer review, thereby strengthening its credibility in the international scientific community.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of -1.186, the institution demonstrates a very low rate of redundant output, showing low-profile consistency with the low-risk national standard (Z-score: -0.245). This absence of risk signals indicates a healthy alignment with best practices in scientific communication. The data suggests that researchers are not engaging in 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. Instead, the focus appears to be on publishing complete, significant contributions, which upholds the integrity of the scientific evidence base.