University of Kyrenia

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The University of Kyrenia presents a complex scientific integrity profile, marked by a notable contrast between areas of controlled risk and significant vulnerabilities. With an overall risk score of 1.218, the institution demonstrates commendable resilience in key areas such as Institutional Self-Citation, Hyper-Authored Output, and the Impact Gap, where its performance surpasses national averages, indicating robust internal governance. However, this is offset by critical alerts in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and the Rate of Retracted Output, which are not only high but also amplify concerning national trends. These specific weaknesses directly challenge the university's mission to foster "ethical and moral values" and "social responsibility," as they suggest that operational practices may be undermining the very integrity required for creating genuine knowledge and value. Despite these challenges, the institution shows strong thematic positioning according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, with competitive national rankings in Engineering (4th), Mathematics (7th), Physics and Astronomy (7th), and Energy (9th). To safeguard its academic reputation and ensure its research excellence is built on a foundation of integrity, it is recommended that the University of Kyrenia initiates a targeted review of its authorship and publication quality control policies, aligning its practices with its aspirational mission of ethical and responsible scholarship.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution exhibits a Z-score of 3.206, a value that significantly exceeds the national average of 1.203. This finding suggests that the university is not merely reflecting a systemic practice but is actively amplifying a vulnerability present in the national research environment. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, such a disproportionately high rate serves as a critical alert. It may signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit through "affiliation shopping," a practice that could compromise the transparency and fairness of academic attribution. An internal review is warranted to ensure that all affiliations are substantive and align with the institution's ethical standards.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 2.117, the university's rate of retractions is substantially higher than the national average of 0.459, indicating a pronounced risk in this area. This discrepancy suggests that the institution is intensifying a national vulnerability concerning post-publication quality control. A rate significantly higher than the average alerts to a potential weakness in the institution's integrity culture. It suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically, potentially indicating recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to protect the university's scientific reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The University of Kyrenia demonstrates a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.289, which is well below the national average of 0.030. This indicates a high degree of institutional resilience, as its control mechanisms appear to effectively mitigate the systemic risks of academic insularity observed at the national level. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's low rate is a positive sign that it avoids the 'echo chambers' that can arise from excessive self-validation. This suggests that the university's academic influence is healthily dependent on recognition from the global community rather than being inflated by internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 1.081, while within the medium-risk category, is considerably higher than the national average of 0.237. This indicates a high level of exposure, suggesting the center is more prone to this risk factor than its peers. A high proportion of publications in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This pattern indicates that a significant portion of its scientific production may be channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for improved information literacy to avoid 'predatory' practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.867, the institution shows a much lower incidence of hyper-authorship compared to the national average of 0.337. This demonstrates strong institutional resilience, as the university appears to have effective filters that mitigate the risk of authorship inflation prevalent in the country. This low score is a positive indicator that the institution successfully distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration, typical in 'Big Science,' and questionable 'honorary' or political authorship practices, thereby upholding individual accountability and transparency in its research outputs.

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

The institution displays a Z-score of -0.269, a low-risk value that contrasts favorably with the national medium-risk average of 0.343. This result points to effective institutional resilience, suggesting that the university is successfully building its own research capacity rather than relying on external partners for impact. A wide positive gap can signal a sustainability risk where prestige is dependent and exogenous. The university's controlled score indicates that its excellence metrics are more likely the result of real internal capacity and intellectual leadership, a key factor for long-term scientific autonomy and reputation.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The university's Z-score for hyperprolific authors is 1.110, placing it in the medium-risk category and exposing it more intensely to this issue than the national average of 0.882. This heightened exposure warrants attention, as extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation. These are dynamics that prioritize metric performance over the integrity of the scientific record and should be reviewed.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is identical to the national average, reflecting perfect integrity synchrony within a secure environment. This total alignment demonstrates a strong commitment to avoiding the conflicts of interest that can arise from excessive dependence on in-house journals, where an institution acts as both judge and party. By favoring external, independent peer review, the university ensures its scientific production undergoes standard competitive validation, which enhances its global visibility and mitigates the risk of academic endogamy or using internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of 0.657, the institution shows a higher exposure to redundant publication practices compared to the national average of 0.186, even though both fall within the medium-risk range. This suggests the university is more prone to this behavior than its peers. A high value alerts to the potential practice of dividing a coherent study into 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity, also known as 'salami slicing.' This practice not only distorts the available scientific evidence but also overburdens the peer-review system, signaling a need to reinforce policies that prioritize significant new knowledge over publication volume.