| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.163 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.418 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.654 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.361 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.314 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.937 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.766 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.207 | -0.245 |
Uskudar University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall score of -0.164, indicating performance slightly above the global average. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining low rates of retracted output, institutional self-citation, and hyperprolific authorship, suggesting a culture that prioritizes quality control and external validation. Furthermore, the university effectively insulates itself from national trends in hyper-authorship and publishing in institutional journals, showcasing strong internal governance. Key areas for strategic attention include a moderate rate of publication in discontinued journals, a notable gap between its overall impact and the impact of its self-led research, and a tendency towards redundant publications. These vulnerabilities, while not critical, require monitoring to ensure they do not undermine the institution's mission. The university's strong performance in key thematic areas according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, including Medicine, Psychology, Social Sciences, and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, directly aligns with its mission to generate scientific solutions for humanity, particularly in behavioral and health sciences. Upholding the highest standards of scientific integrity is paramount to ensuring these solutions are credible and impactful, thereby reinforcing the corporate values of excellence and social responsibility. By leveraging its clear strengths in research governance, Uskudar University is well-positioned to address these moderate risks and further solidify its reputation as a leader in ethical and impactful research.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is -0.163, while the national average for Turkey is -0.526. Although the university's rate of multiple affiliations is low and well within acceptable parameters, it shows a slightly higher signal than the national norm. This suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants observation. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this slight upward deviation compared to the national context indicates a need to ensure that these affiliations are consistently substantive and not early signs of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit through "affiliation shopping."
With a Z-score of -0.418, the university demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of retracted publications, which is a positive signal that aligns well with the national standard (Z-score -0.173). This low-profile consistency suggests that the institution's pre-publication quality control and supervision mechanisms are robust and effective. The near absence of retractions indicates that research is conducted with methodological rigor, and when unintentional errors occur, they are likely addressed responsibly before reaching the final publication stage, reinforcing a strong culture of scientific integrity.
The university exhibits a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.654, significantly lower than the national average of -0.119. This indicates that the institution manages its citation practices with more rigor than the national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university's very low rate demonstrates a strong commitment to external validation and integration into the global scientific conversation. This performance effectively mitigates the risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers' and shows that the institution's academic influence is built on broad community recognition rather than being inflated by internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of 0.361 is in the medium-risk range and notably higher than the national average of 0.179. This reveals a high exposure to this particular risk, suggesting the university is more prone than its national peers to publishing in questionable venues. A high proportion of output in journals that do not meet international ethical or quality standards constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This pattern exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need to enhance information literacy among researchers to avoid channeling valuable scientific work into 'predatory' or low-quality outlets.
With a Z-score of -0.314, the university maintains a low rate of hyper-authored publications, demonstrating institutional resilience against a risk that is more prevalent at the national level (country Z-score 0.074). This indicates that the institution's control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the country's systemic risks in this area. By maintaining low rates of hyper-authorship outside of 'Big Science' contexts, the university successfully avoids potential author list inflation, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency and distinguishing its collaborative work from practices involving 'honorary' or political authorship.
The university shows a moderate deviation from the national norm, with a Z-score of 0.937 compared to the country's low-risk score of -0.064. This greater sensitivity to the risk factor suggests that the institution's scientific prestige may be more dependent on external collaborations than is typical for its peers. A wide positive gap, where global impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a sustainability risk. It invites reflection on whether the university's excellence metrics result from its own structural capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The institution displays a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.766, which is significantly lower than the national average of -0.430. This demonstrates that the university manages its research environment with more rigor than the national standard, fostering a healthier balance between productivity and quality. By maintaining a very low rate of hyperprolific authors, the institution effectively mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, signaling a culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the simple inflation of publication metrics.
The university's Z-score of -0.268 places it in the very low-risk category, showcasing a preventive isolation from a risk that is present at a medium level in the country (national Z-score 0.119). This result indicates that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. By overwhelmingly choosing external publication channels, the university avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This commitment to independent, external peer review enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, demonstrating that its scientific production undergoes standard competitive validation rather than relying on internal 'fast tracks'.
With a Z-score of 0.207, the institution registers a medium level of risk, representing a moderate deviation from the low-risk national standard (Z-score -0.245). This suggests the university shows greater sensitivity than its peers to practices that can artificially inflate productivity. A high value in this indicator alerts to the potential for 'salami slicing,' where a coherent study is fragmented into minimal publishable units. This practice not only overburdens the peer-review system but also distorts the scientific evidence base, prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant, cohesive new knowledge.
