| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.226 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.334 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.412 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.084 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.268 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.196 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.091 | -0.245 |
Artvin Coruh University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.453 that indicates performance significantly better than the global average. The institution demonstrates exceptional governance in key areas, showing very low risk in the rates of Multiple Affiliations, Hyper-Authored Output, Hyperprolific Authors, and Output in Institutional Journals. These strengths suggest a culture that prioritizes transparency, individual accountability, and external validation. The primary areas for strategic attention are a medium-risk signal related to the impact gap of its research, suggesting a dependency on external leadership, and a moderate presence in discontinued journals. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas nationally include Earth and Planetary Sciences, Psychology, Arts and Humanities, and Computer Science. While the institutional mission was not specified, these identified risks, particularly the reliance on external partners for impact, could challenge the long-term sustainability of its research excellence and its capacity to fulfill a mission centered on sovereign intellectual contribution and social leadership. By focusing on strengthening internal research leadership and enhancing due diligence in publication channels, the university can build upon its solid foundation to achieve a truly exemplary and sustainable integrity framework.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.226, a very low value that contrasts favorably with the national average of -0.526. This result indicates a clear and consistent pattern of institutional affiliation, aligning with the low-risk national standard but demonstrating an even more conservative profile. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of researcher mobility or partnerships, the university's data shows no signs of the strategic inflation of institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” This operational silence in a potential risk area points to transparent and unambiguous authorship practices, reinforcing the clarity of its scientific contributions.
With a Z-score of -0.334, the institution's rate of retracted output is lower than the national average of -0.173, positioning it as a prudent actor within a low-risk national context. This suggests that the university's quality control mechanisms are managed with greater rigor than the national standard. Retractions can be complex, but a rate significantly below the norm is a positive indicator that pre-publication supervision and methodological checks are effective. This performance minimizes the likelihood of systemic failures or recurring malpractice, reflecting a healthy culture of integrity and responsible research conduct.
The university's Z-score for institutional self-citation is -0.412, a figure that is notably lower than the national average of -0.119. This demonstrates a prudent and externally-focused research profile, managing its processes with more rigor than the national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's low rate indicates it successfully avoids the creation of 'echo chambers' or endogamous impact inflation. This suggests that the university's academic influence is validated by the broader global community rather than being oversized by internal dynamics, reflecting a strong connection to international scientific discourse.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.084, which, while indicating a medium risk level, is considerably lower than the national average of 0.179. This demonstrates a capacity for differentiated management, as the university effectively moderates a risk that appears more common across the country. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals can signal a critical failure in due diligence, exposing an institution to severe reputational damage. Although the risk exists, the university's better-than-average performance suggests it is more discerning in its choice of publication venues, though continued efforts in information literacy are warranted to fully mitigate the risk of engaging with low-quality or 'predatory' outlets.
With a Z-score of -1.268, the institution shows a near-total absence of hyper-authored output, a stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.074. This reflects a state of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' their appearance elsewhere can indicate author list inflation that dilutes accountability. The university's very low score is a strong positive signal of its commitment to meaningful and transparent authorship, effectively avoiding practices like 'honorary' or political authorship and ensuring individual contributions remain clear.
The university's Z-score of 0.196 represents a moderate deviation from the national standard, which stands at a low-risk -0.064. This greater sensitivity to the risk factor indicates a potential structural vulnerability. A wide positive gap, as suggested by the score, signals a risk to sustainability, where the institution's overall scientific prestige may be dependent on collaborations in which it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether its high-impact metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from a strategic positioning in partnerships led by external entities, highlighting a need to foster and promote its own research leaders.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, positioning it well below the already low national average of -0.430. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals aligns with and improves upon the national standard. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the credibility of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation. The university's data strongly suggests a healthy balance between quantity and quality, prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over the simple inflation of metrics.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the university shows a very low reliance on its own journals, standing in sharp contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.119. This indicates a form of preventive isolation, whereby the institution avoids the risks of academic endogamy prevalent in its environment. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest and allow production to bypass independent external peer review. The university's commitment to publishing in external venues demonstrates a focus on achieving global visibility and competitive validation, steering clear of using internal channels as potential 'fast tracks' for publication.
The institution's Z-score for redundant output is -0.091, which, while in the low-risk category, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.245. This score points to an incipient vulnerability, suggesting the presence of signals that warrant review before they escalate. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate 'salami slicing,' a practice of fragmenting a single study into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity. While the current level is not alarming, it serves as a pre-alert to monitor publication patterns and ensure that the focus remains on producing significant new knowledge rather than prioritizing volume.
