Yalova University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Yalova University presents a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.529 that indicates a performance significantly healthier than the global average. The institution's primary strength lies in its capacity to maintain very low-risk levels in areas where national trends show vulnerability, particularly in avoiding hyper-authored output, publication in discontinued journals, and reliance on institutional journals. This demonstrates effective internal governance and a commitment to high-quality research practices. The main area for proactive monitoring is a minor, incipient vulnerability in the rate of redundant output, which slightly exceeds the national average, though it remains within a low-risk threshold. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas include Business, Management and Accounting (ranked 14th in Turkey) and Agricultural and Biological Sciences (ranked 20th in Turkey), where this solid integrity foundation can be leveraged for greater impact. This outstanding ethical performance directly aligns with the institutional mission to train professionals with "intellectual and moral virtues" and who have "internalized the rule of law." By embodying these principles in its own research conduct, the university sets a powerful example. The recommendation is to consolidate this position by formally integrating these integrity metrics into strategic planning, thereby transforming a strong operational reality into a defining feature of the Yalova University brand.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The university's Z-score of -0.622 is slightly more favorable than the national average of -0.526, with both values situated in a low-risk range. This suggests a prudent and well-managed approach to academic collaborations. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution's ability to maintain a rate even lower than the national standard indicates that its processes are rigorous. This helps to prevent strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," ensuring that all declared affiliations represent substantive and transparent collaborations.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.390, the university demonstrates a very low rate of retracted publications, performing better than the already low-risk national average of -0.173. This absence of significant risk signals is consistent with a healthy national research environment and points to the effectiveness of the institution's pre-publication quality control mechanisms. Such a low rate suggests that potential methodological errors are identified and corrected internally, reflecting a strong culture of integrity and responsible supervision that prevents the systemic failures that can lead to retractions.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution maintains a Z-score of -0.209 for self-citation, a figure that indicates a more prudent profile than the national average of -0.119. This demonstrates that the university manages its citation practices with greater rigor than the national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university's controlled rate suggests it successfully avoids creating scientific 'echo chambers.' This commitment to external validation ensures that the institution's academic influence is built on recognition from the global community rather than being artificially inflated by internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

Yalova University shows remarkable institutional resilience by maintaining a low-risk Z-score of -0.220, in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.179. This divergence indicates that the university's internal control mechanisms are successfully mitigating a systemic risk prevalent in the country. A high proportion of publications in such journals constitutes a critical alert, but the university's performance shows strong due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This protects its reputation and ensures its scientific output is not channeled through media lacking international ethical or quality standards, thereby avoiding 'predatory' practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The university exhibits a clear state of preventive isolation from national trends, with an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.376 compared to the medium-risk national score of 0.074. This significant gap demonstrates that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics of author list inflation observed elsewhere in its environment. By maintaining conventional authorship patterns, the university reinforces individual accountability and transparency, effectively distinguishing its legitimate collaborative work from 'honorary' or political authorship practices that can dilute the meaning of scientific contribution.

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

With a Z-score of -1.018, far below the national average of -0.064, the university shows an exceptionally small gap between its overall citation impact and the impact of research where it holds a leadership role. This near-total absence of risk signals is consistent with a healthy research ecosystem and indicates that the institution's scientific prestige is built upon strong, sustainable internal capacity. This performance suggests that its excellence metrics result from genuine intellectual leadership rather than a strategic dependency on external partners, reflecting a structurally sound and autonomous research model.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The university's Z-score of -1.413 is very low, sitting well below the national average of -0.430, indicating a complete absence of hyperprolific authorship signals. This low-profile consistency aligns with a healthy national standard and reflects a sound institutional balance between productivity and quality. The lack of extreme individual publication volumes suggests that the university fosters an environment that prioritizes meaningful intellectual contribution over raw metrics, thereby avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution effectively isolates itself from a national tendency toward publishing in institutional journals, registering a very low-risk Z-score of -0.268 against the country's medium-risk score of 0.119. This behavior underscores a strong commitment to independent external peer review and global visibility. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the university mitigates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, ensuring its research output is validated through standard competitive channels rather than being fast-tracked internally.

Rate of Redundant Output

The university's Z-score for redundant output is -0.148. Although this falls within the low-risk category, it is slightly higher than the national average of -0.245, signaling an incipient vulnerability that warrants review. This metric alerts to the potential practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, a practice known as 'salami slicing.' While the signal is currently weak, it suggests that monitoring is needed to ensure research practices continue to prioritize the generation of significant new knowledge over the maximization of publication volume.