| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.857 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
2.869 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.747 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.135 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.288 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.817 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.528 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.908 | -0.245 |
Bartin University demonstrates a solid overall performance profile with a score of 0.805, characterized by significant strengths in research governance but punctuated by critical vulnerabilities that require strategic attention. The institution excels with very low risk in areas such as Hyper-Authored Output, the Gap between global and led impact, and Output in Institutional Journals, indicating robust internal controls and a healthy collaborative posture. However, these strengths are contrasted by a significant alert in the Rate of Retracted Output and medium-risk signals in Institutional Self-Citation, Hyperprolific Authors, and Redundant Output. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's scientific leadership is most prominent in Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics; Physics and Astronomy; Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology; and Psychology. The identified integrity risks, particularly the high rate of retractions, directly challenge the university's mission to uphold "social, scientific and ethical values." This discrepancy between stated values and observed practices could undermine the credibility of the information and technologies it produces. To secure its future and fully align its operational reality with its aspirational goals, Bartin University is advised to implement a targeted integrity action plan, focusing on strengthening pre-publication quality controls and promoting a culture of responsible research that will fortify its leadership in its key thematic areas.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.857, which is lower than the national average of -0.526. This indicates a prudent and well-managed approach to academic affiliations. While the national context already shows low risk in this area, the university operates with even greater rigor. This suggests that its policies effectively prevent the strategic inflation of institutional credit or “affiliation shopping,” ensuring that declared collaborations are substantive and transparent, setting a standard of clarity that is more rigorous than the national norm.
With a Z-score of 2.869, in stark contrast to the country's low-risk average of -0.173, the institution exhibits a severe discrepancy that demands an urgent and deep integrity assessment. This is not an isolated issue but a significant anomaly within the national scientific landscape. Retractions are complex, but a rate this far above the global average is a critical alert. It suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically, pointing to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This situation indicates possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to protect the university's reputation and ensure the reliability of its research record.
The institution's Z-score of 0.747 represents a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.119. This suggests the university is more sensitive to risk factors related to citation practices than its national peers. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, this elevated rate can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. The score warns of a potential for endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be disproportionately shaped by internal dynamics rather than by broader recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution's Z-score of 0.135 is closely aligned with the national average of 0.179, indicating its performance reflects a systemic pattern common throughout the country. This shared medium-risk level suggests a widespread challenge in the national research ecosystem regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. A Z-score in this range indicates that a portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. This exposes the institution to reputational risks and suggests a shared need for improved information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of -1.288, the institution demonstrates a state of preventive isolation from the medium-risk trend observed at the national level (0.074). This very low score indicates that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics related to authorship inflation seen elsewhere in its environment. This is a positive signal of strong governance, suggesting the institution effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and problematic 'honorary' or political authorship practices. This commitment to clear accountability and transparency in authorship serves as a model of integrity.
The institution's Z-score of -0.817, compared to the national average of -0.064, demonstrates low-profile consistency and an absence of risk signals in this area, aligning with the national standard of low dependency. A low score here is a sign of scientific maturity and sustainability. It indicates that the institution's scientific prestige is not overly dependent on external partners but is driven by its own structural capacity. This reflects a healthy balance where excellence metrics result from genuine internal capabilities and intellectual leadership, ensuring long-term research autonomy.
The institution's Z-score of 0.528 marks a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.430, indicating a greater sensitivity to this risk factor compared to its peers. While high productivity can be positive, extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator serves as an alert to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation. It highlights a need to review internal dynamics to ensure that institutional pressures do not prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is exceptionally low, especially when contrasted with the country's medium-risk average of 0.119. This reflects a state of preventive isolation, where the center actively avoids the risks of academic endogamy that appear more prevalent nationally. This very low rate indicates that the university's scientific production consistently undergoes independent external peer review, thereby avoiding potential conflicts of interest. By prioritizing global dissemination channels over internal ones, the institution enhances its international visibility and ensures its research is validated through standard competitive processes.
With a Z-score of 0.908, the institution shows a moderate deviation from the national low-risk average of -0.245. This suggests the university is more exposed to practices that can artificially inflate productivity metrics. 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 distorts the available scientific evidence but also overburdens the peer-review system. The score warrants a review of publication strategies to ensure that the focus remains on producing significant new knowledge rather than maximizing publication volume.
