| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.073 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.381 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.489 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.744 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.146 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.025 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.878 | -0.245 |
Cankiri Karatekin University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.365 that indicates a performance significantly healthier than the baseline. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths in maintaining low rates of hyper-prolific authorship, multiple affiliations, and output in institutional journals, effectively insulating itself from several risk trends prevalent at the national level. However, two areas require strategic attention: a medium-risk exposure to publishing in discontinued journals and a notable gap between its total research impact and the impact of work where it holds intellectual leadership. These vulnerabilities could potentially undermine the long-term sustainability of its research prestige. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas include Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, Agricultural and Biological Sciences, and Mathematics. To fully align its operational practices with a mission of excellence and social responsibility, it is crucial to address the identified risks, as they challenge the principles of quality and sustainable knowledge creation. By focusing on enhancing due diligence in publication venue selection and fostering endogenous research capacity, the university can build upon its solid integrity foundation to achieve even greater global recognition.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.073, a very low value that is notably healthier than the country's low-risk average of -0.526. This demonstrates a commendable alignment with national standards for collaborative integrity, showing no signals of risk in this area. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of researcher mobility and partnerships, the university's low rate confirms the absence of any patterns that might suggest strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” reflecting a transparent and well-governed approach to academic collaboration.
With a Z-score of -0.381, the institution maintains a very low rate of retractions, positioning it favorably against the national average of -0.173. This consistency with a low-risk environment suggests that the university’s quality control mechanisms prior to publication are functioning effectively. Retractions can sometimes signify responsible supervision through the correction of honest errors, but the institution's minimal rate indicates a strong preventative culture. There is no evidence of systemic vulnerabilities, recurring malpractice, or a lack of methodological rigor that would require management intervention.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is -0.489, a low value that reflects a more prudent profile than the national standard of -0.119. This indicates that the university manages its citation practices with greater rigor than its national peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural to reflect ongoing research lines, but the institution's conservative rate demonstrates a healthy reliance on external validation. This approach successfully mitigates the risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers' and ensures its academic influence is driven by broad community recognition rather than being inflated by internal dynamics.
The university shows a Z-score of 0.744 in this category, a medium-risk signal that indicates a higher exposure to this issue compared to the national average of 0.179. This is a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. A high proportion of publications in journals that cease to operate suggests that a significant portion of scientific output is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. This exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and points to an urgent need for enhanced information literacy among researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publishing practices.
With a Z-score of -1.146, the institution demonstrates a near-total absence of hyper-authored publications, effectively isolating itself from the moderate risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score of 0.074). This preventive stance suggests strong internal governance that distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and practices of author list inflation. By maintaining this discipline, the university avoids the dilution of individual accountability and transparency, ensuring that authorship credit is reserved for those with genuine intellectual contributions and is not used for 'honorary' or political purposes.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.025, a medium-risk value that marks a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.064. This positive gap indicates that the university's overall impact is disproportionately higher than the impact of the research it leads, suggesting a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. This signals a potential sustainability risk, where scientific prestige may be overly dependent on external partners rather than on structural, internal capacity. It invites a strategic reflection on whether the institution's excellence metrics are the result of its own intellectual leadership or a consequence of strategic positioning in collaborations where it plays a secondary role.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, indicating a near absence of hyperprolific authors and aligning perfectly with a secure national environment (country Z-score of -0.430). This strong performance suggests a research culture that prioritizes quality and meaningful intellectual contribution over sheer publication volume. By avoiding extreme individual productivity rates, the university effectively mitigates risks such as coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or the assignment of authorship without real participation, thereby upholding the integrity of its scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the university shows a very low reliance on its own journals, a practice that insulates it from the moderate-risk trend seen across the country (Z-score of 0.119). This demonstrates a clear commitment to avoiding potential conflicts of interest where the institution might act as both judge and party. By shunning academic endogamy, the university ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which enhances its global visibility and prevents the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' for inflating publication counts without standard competitive validation.
The institution records a Z-score of -0.878, a very low value that is consistent with, and even improves upon, the low-risk national standard of -0.245. This result indicates a strong institutional norm against data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' The university's output shows little evidence of dividing coherent studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This practice reinforces the integrity of the scientific record by prioritizing the communication of significant new knowledge over the maximization of publication metrics.
