| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.537 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.634 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.611 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.649 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.331 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.374 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.859 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.610 | -0.245 |
Istanbul Gelisim University presents a dual profile in scientific integrity, characterized by exceptional strengths in research autonomy and authorship practices, contrasted with notable vulnerabilities in publication channels and quality control. With an overall score of 0.436, the institution demonstrates robust internal governance in areas such as institutional self-citation, hyper-authorship, and intellectual leadership, indicating a solid foundation of academic sovereignty. However, medium-risk signals in the rates of retractions, publications in discontinued journals, and hyperprolific authorship require strategic attention. These challenges stand in contrast to the university's strong thematic positioning, particularly in Economics, Econometrics and Finance (ranked 6th in Turkey), Business, Management and Accounting (9th), and Engineering (11th), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. To fully align with its mission of adding value to society through activities guided by "ethics," "internalized quality," and "accountability," it is crucial to address these integrity risks. Practices that compromise the quality and reliability of research output directly threaten these core values. By leveraging its clear strengths in research governance, the university is well-positioned to mitigate these vulnerabilities, thereby reinforcing its commitment to excellence and ensuring its contributions are both impactful and unimpeachable.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 0.537 in this indicator, a figure that shows a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.526. This suggests the university is more sensitive to risk factors associated with multiple affiliations than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the higher rate at the institution could signal a strategic tendency towards “affiliation shopping” to inflate institutional credit. This pattern warrants a review to ensure that all affiliations are substantive and reflect genuine collaboration, rather than being used primarily for metric enhancement, a practice that is less common across the country.
With a Z-score of 0.634, the institution's rate of retracted output is significantly higher than the national average of -0.173. This moderate deviation indicates a greater sensitivity to the factors leading to retractions compared to its peers. A high Z-score in this indicator suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing more systemically than elsewhere in the country. This rate alerts to a vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, pointing to possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to safeguard its scientific reputation.
The institution demonstrates a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.611, which is considerably lower than the national average of -0.119. This indicates that the university manages its citation practices with more rigor than the national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural to reflect the continuity of research lines, but the institution's exceptionally low rate showcases a healthy reliance on external scrutiny and validation from the global scientific community. This approach effectively avoids the creation of scientific 'echo chambers' and prevents any perception of endogamous impact inflation, reinforcing the international credibility of its work.
The institution's Z-score of 1.649 reveals high exposure to this risk, placing it significantly above the national average of 0.179. Although publishing in such journals appears to be a systemic pattern in the country, the university is far more prone to this practice. This high Z-score constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It indicates that a significant portion of the university's scientific production is being 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 information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution shows a remarkable preventive isolation from national trends, with a Z-score of -1.331 in stark contrast to the country's medium-risk average of 0.074. This demonstrates that the center does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. While extensive author lists can be legitimate in some fields, the national context shows a tendency that could indicate author list inflation. The university's very low score, however, signals strong governance that preserves individual accountability and transparency, effectively distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship practices.
The institution demonstrates low-profile consistency and exceptional health in its research leadership, with a Z-score of -1.374 that is well below the already low-risk national average of -0.064. The absence of risk signals aligns with, and even exceeds, the national standard. A wide positive gap can signal a risk of dependency, where prestige is exogenous. However, the university's very low score indicates that its scientific prestige is structurally sound and results from real internal capacity. This confirms that its excellence metrics are driven by its own intellectual leadership, ensuring long-term sustainability and academic sovereignty.
A moderate deviation is observed in this indicator, with the institution's Z-score of 0.859 contrasting sharply with the low-risk national average of -0.430. This suggests the university shows greater sensitivity to risk factors related to hyperprolificity than its peers. Extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of human capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution. This elevated indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation. This dynamic warrants a review to ensure institutional incentives prioritize scientific integrity over sheer volume.
The institution demonstrates a clear preventive isolation from a risk that is more common nationally, with a Z-score of -0.268 against a national average of 0.119. The university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment, where a medium-level reliance on institutional journals is present. By minimizing its dependence on in-house journals, the university avoids potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This commitment to independent external peer review ensures its scientific production bypasses internal 'fast tracks', thereby enhancing its global visibility and validation through standard competitive channels.
The institution maintains a profile of low-profile consistency, with a Z-score of -0.610 that indicates an absence of risk signals, performing even better than the low-risk national average of -0.245. This exemplary score signals a strong institutional culture that prioritizes significant new knowledge over artificially inflated productivity. The data suggests a commendable focus on publishing coherent, impactful studies rather than fragmenting data into minimal publishable units. This practice strengthens the integrity of the scientific record and reflects a responsible approach to research that values substance over volume.
