| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.818 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
1.169 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.925 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.986 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.917 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.348 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -0.245 |
Istanbul Sabahattin Zaim University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in its low overall risk score of 0.079. The institution demonstrates exceptional control over potential academic endogamy and productivity distortions, with very low risk signals in areas such as Institutional Self-Citation, Hyperprolific Authorship, and Redundant Output. This strong foundation is complemented by notable thematic strengths, particularly in Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Arts and Humanities, and Economics, Econometrics and Finance, where it holds a prominent position within Turkey according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, this solid performance is contrasted by critical vulnerabilities in post-publication quality control and the selection of dissemination channels. These specific risks, if left unaddressed, could undermine the institution's mission to shape "virtuous leaders" and its dedication to rigorous "scientific inquiry," as they challenge the very principles of excellence and responsibility. A targeted strategy to reinforce pre-publication review and enhance information literacy among researchers will be crucial to consolidate its integrity framework and fully align its practices with its aspirational vision.
The institution shows a prudent approach, with a Z-score of -0.818, which is more rigorous than the national standard of -0.526. This indicates that the university's affiliation practices are well-managed and less prone to risk signals than its national peers. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the institution's lower rate suggests a well-controlled environment that avoids strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping,” reinforcing a culture of transparent and authentic academic contribution.
A severe discrepancy is observed in the rate of retractions, where the institution's Z-score of 1.169 stands in stark contrast to the low-risk national average of -0.173. This atypical level of risk activity demands an immediate and deep integrity assessment. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the norm suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture points to possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires urgent qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation.
The institution demonstrates a very low rate of institutional self-citation (Z-score: -0.925), a signal of integrity that is even stronger than the already low-risk national context (Z-score: -0.119). This absence of risk signals indicates a healthy integration with the global scientific community. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines, but the university's exceptionally low rate confirms that its work is validated by broad external scrutiny rather than through internal 'echo chambers.' This practice reinforces the credibility of its academic influence, showing it is built on global recognition, not endogamous dynamics.
The institution shows high exposure to publishing in discontinued journals, with a Z-score of 0.986 that is significantly higher than the national average of 0.179. This indicates a greater propensity for its researchers to select dissemination channels that may not meet international quality standards. A high proportion of output in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence. This pattern suggests an urgent need to strengthen information literacy and guidance for researchers to avoid channeling valuable scientific work into 'predatory' or low-quality media, which wastes resources and poses a severe reputational risk.
The university demonstrates strong institutional resilience against hyper-authorship, with a Z-score of -0.917, effectively mitigating the moderate risk observed at the national level (Z-score: 0.074). This suggests that the institution's internal control mechanisms are successful in preventing author list inflation. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' the institution's low rate outside these contexts indicates a culture that values individual accountability and transparency, successfully distinguishing necessary collaboration from questionable 'honorary' or political authorship practices.
The institution exhibits a very low-risk profile in its leadership impact gap, with a Z-score of -1.348, far below the national average of -0.064. This result is a strong indicator of scientific autonomy and sustainability. A wide positive gap can signal that an institution's prestige is dependent on external partners, but this is not the case here. The minimal gap demonstrates that the university's recognized impact is a direct result of its own intellectual leadership and internal capacity, rather than a reflection of strategic positioning in collaborations where it plays a secondary role.
With an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.413 compared to the national value of -0.430, the institution shows no signs of hyperprolific authorship. This absence of risk signals is consistent with a healthy national environment and points to a balanced academic culture. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may signal issues like coercive authorship or 'salami slicing.' The university's data, however, suggests a strong emphasis on the quality and integrity of the scientific record over the sheer quantity of publications.
The institution effectively isolates itself from the moderate national trend of publishing in institutional journals, showing a very low Z-score of -0.268 against the country's risk-prone score of 0.119. This preventive stance is a strong indicator of its commitment to independent peer review. While in-house journals can be valuable, excessive dependence on them raises conflicts of interest. The university's low rate demonstrates that its scientific production is overwhelmingly validated through external, competitive channels, thus avoiding academic endogamy and ensuring its research has global visibility and credibility.
The institution maintains a very low rate of redundant output, with a Z-score of -1.186 that is well below the national average of -0.245. This lack of risk signals aligns with the country's low-risk context and indicates a commitment to producing substantive research. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can suggest 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting studies to inflate productivity. The university's clean record in this area shows that its researchers prioritize the generation of significant new knowledge over artificially boosting publication volume, thereby respecting the integrity of the scientific evidence base.
