| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.894 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.314 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.224 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.292 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.742 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.471 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.833 | -0.245 |
Acibadem University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.264, indicating a performance that is healthier than the global average. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths in maintaining very low-risk levels for multiple affiliations, institutional self-citation, hyperprolific authorship, publication in institutional journals, and redundant output. These results reflect a solid foundation of ethical research practices. However, areas requiring strategic attention have been identified, specifically the medium-risk signals in retracted output, hyper-authored publications, and the gap between overall impact and the impact of institution-led research. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's thematic strengths are particularly notable in Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (ranked 34th in Turkey) and Medicine (ranked 40th in Turkey), areas where research integrity is paramount. The identified vulnerabilities, while moderate, directly challenge the institutional mission to achieve "a high level of excellence" and uphold "ethical values." Addressing these specific risks is crucial to ensure that its pioneering practices are built on a foundation of unquestionable scientific rigor. By focusing on these areas, Acibadem University can further solidify its reputation as a leading institution that not only innovates but does so with the highest standards of integrity.
The institution exhibits an exceptionally controlled approach to academic affiliations, with a Z-score of -0.894, which is significantly lower than the country's already low-risk score of -0.526. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals surpasses even the national standard. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, the university's data indicates a highly transparent and unambiguous policy regarding author attributions, effectively eliminating any suspicion of strategic practices like "affiliation shopping" designed to artificially inflate institutional credit.
A moderate deviation from the national norm is observed in this indicator, with the institution's Z-score at 0.314 (medium risk) compared to the country's score of -0.173 (low risk). This suggests the university is more sensitive to factors leading to retractions than its national peers. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly above the average serves as an alert that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be failing systemically. This vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture points to a potential for recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that warrants immediate qualitative verification by management to safeguard its scientific reputation.
The university demonstrates a remarkably low rate of institutional self-citation, with a Z-score of -1.224, placing it well below the national benchmark of -0.119. This result indicates a strong outward-looking research culture that aligns with the low-risk national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's minimal reliance on it confirms that its work is validated by the broader scientific community, avoiding the creation of 'echo chambers'. This performance suggests that the institution's academic influence is genuinely built on global recognition rather than being inflated by endogamous internal dynamics.
With a Z-score of -0.292 (low risk), the institution shows significant resilience against a trend more prevalent at the national level, where the country has a medium-risk score of 0.179. This suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk present in its environment. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals can be a critical alert regarding due diligence, but this institution's performance indicates its researchers are successfully navigating the publishing landscape to avoid predatory or low-quality channels, thereby protecting its resources and reputation.
Both the institution and the country fall within a medium-risk category for this indicator, but the university's Z-score of 0.742 reveals a significantly higher exposure compared to the national average of 0.074. This suggests the institution is more prone to publishing works with extensive author lists. While this is legitimate in 'Big Science' fields, an elevated rate outside those contexts can signal author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. This serves as a signal to review authorship practices and ensure they distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and potentially 'honorary' attributions.
The institution's Z-score of 0.471 (medium risk) marks a moderate deviation from the country's low-risk score of -0.064, indicating a greater reliance on collaborative impact than its national peers. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a potential sustainability risk. This value suggests that a portion of the university's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous. It invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics are derived from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The institution shows a near-complete absence of hyperprolific authorship, with a Z-score of -1.413, far below the country's low-risk score of -0.430. This performance aligns perfectly with the national standard of integrity, indicating a healthy research environment. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This institution's data strongly suggests a culture that prioritizes quality over quantity, effectively avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or other practices that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
A clear case of preventive isolation is observed, as the institution's Z-score of -0.268 (very low risk) contrasts sharply with the country's medium-risk score of 0.119. This demonstrates that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics common in its environment. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. By strongly favoring external publication channels, the institution ensures its research undergoes independent peer review, thereby enhancing its global visibility and confirming that its output is validated through standard, competitive processes.
With a Z-score of -0.833, the institution's rate of redundant output is exceptionally low, performing even better than the country's low-risk benchmark of -0.245. This low-profile consistency with the national standard signals a robust commitment to producing significant and novel research. A high rate of bibliographic overlap can indicate 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a study to inflate productivity. This institution's excellent result suggests a culture that values substantive contributions over volume, thereby upholding the integrity of scientific evidence and respecting the academic review system.
