| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
2.646 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.220 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.814 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
2.924 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.251 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.449 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
3.261 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.334 | -0.245 |
Biruni University's overall integrity profile, with a score of 1.187, indicates a moderate level of risk exposure that warrants strategic attention. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in areas of intellectual autonomy and governance, particularly with very low-risk signals in the Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership and the Rate of Output in Institutional Journals. These results suggest a healthy reliance on internal research capacity and an avoidance of academic endogamy. However, these strengths are counterbalanced by critical vulnerabilities, most notably a significant rate of publication in discontinued journals and a high concentration of hyperprolific authors. These weaknesses, alongside a consistent pattern of medium-risk scores across multiple indicators, point to systemic challenges. The university's strong academic positioning, evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings in key areas such as Chemistry (Top 15 in Turkey), Dentistry (Top 35), Physics and Astronomy (Top 40), and Medicine (Top 40), provides a solid foundation of excellence. Yet, the identified integrity risks directly challenge the institutional mission to meet "global standards" and produce knowledge responsibly. Addressing these vulnerabilities is crucial to ensure that operational practices align with the university's stated commitment to excellence and its social responsibility, thereby safeguarding its long-term reputation and impact.
The institution's Z-score for the Rate of Multiple Affiliations is 2.646, which is notably higher than the national average of -0.526. This suggests a moderate deviation from the national norm, indicating that the university shows a greater sensitivity to the factors driving this practice than its peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” This value warrants a review to ensure that all affiliations are substantive and reflect genuine collaboration rather than a pursuit of metrics.
With a Z-score of 0.220, the institution's rate of retracted publications is higher than the national average of -0.173. This moderate deviation suggests the university is more exposed to the underlying causes of retractions than other institutions in the country. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the average can alert to a vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. It suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be facing challenges, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management.
The university's Z-score for institutional self-citation is 0.814, marking a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.119. This indicates a greater tendency toward internal citation patterns compared to its national peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of established research lines. However, this elevated rate could signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. It warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than global community recognition.
With a Z-score of 2.924, significantly above the national average of 0.179, the institution shows a pronounced tendency to publish in discontinued journals. This pattern suggests an accentuation of a vulnerability already present in the national system, constituting a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. A high Z-score indicates that a significant portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution's Z-score for hyper-authored output is -0.251, which is below the national average of 0.074. This demonstrates institutional resilience, as control mechanisms appear to be successfully mitigating the systemic risks of authorship inflation observed elsewhere in the country. This favorable result suggests that the university effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and 'honorary' or political authorship practices, thereby maintaining a high standard of individual accountability and transparency in its publications.
The institution demonstrates a very low-risk profile in the gap between its total impact and the impact of research under its leadership, with a Z-score of -1.449 compared to the national average of -0.064. This result shows a healthy consistency, as the absence of a significant gap aligns with the national standard. It indicates that the institution's scientific prestige is not overly dependent on external partners but is rooted in its own structural capacity. This reflects strong internal intellectual leadership, where the impact generated is proportional to the research directly led by its own academics, ensuring sustainable and authentic scientific influence.
The university presents a Z-score of 3.261 for hyperprolific authors, a figure that represents a severe discrepancy when compared to the national average of -0.430. This atypical risk activity is an outlier within the national context and requires a deep integrity assessment. Extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of human capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution. This high indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship, 'salami slicing,' or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over scientific record integrity.
With a Z-score of -0.268, far below the national average of 0.119, the institution shows a commendable avoidance of publishing in its own journals. This pattern represents a form of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics of academic endogamy observed in its environment. By prioritizing external, independent peer review, the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest and ensures its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels. This practice enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research output.
The institution's Z-score for redundant output is 0.334, indicating a moderate deviation above the national average of -0.245. This suggests the university is more sensitive than its peers to practices that lead to significant bibliographic overlap between publications. A high value alerts to the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, also known as 'salami slicing.' This behavior can distort the available scientific evidence and overburden the review system, prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
