| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.455 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.362 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.243 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.774 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.040 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.338 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.009 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.309 | -0.245 |
Agri Ibrahim Cecen University presents a balanced integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.052 indicating performance aligned with the global baseline. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in fostering scientific autonomy, evidenced by a very low dependency on external collaborators for impact and a minimal reliance on institutional journals, which effectively insulates it from national trends toward academic endogamy. Further strengths include robust authorship standards and prudent management of retractions and self-citations. However, areas requiring strategic attention emerge in the medium-risk categories of Multiple Affiliations, Redundant Output, and particularly, a high rate of publication in Discontinued Journals. These vulnerabilities could undermine the institution's mission to achieve a distinguished "scientific identity in the national and international arena." The university's notable research strengths, as reflected in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, lie in Psychology (ranked 11th in Turkey), Agricultural and Biological Sciences (45th), and Social Sciences (52nd). To fully align its operational practices with its mission of delivering "quality education services" and upholding "universal values," it is recommended that the university develops targeted policies to improve due diligence in journal selection and reinforce guidelines on publication ethics, thereby ensuring its commendable research output is built upon a foundation of unimpeachable integrity.
The institution's Z-score of 0.455 contrasts with the national average of -0.526, indicating a moderate deviation from the country's norm. This suggests the university shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors related to affiliation practices than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, a disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” This divergence warrants a review to ensure that all declared affiliations reflect substantive collaboration and transparently represent the institution's contribution to research.
With a Z-score of -0.362, the institution displays a more prudent profile than the national standard, which stands at -0.173. This demonstrates that the university's processes are managed with greater rigor than the average in its environment. Retractions are complex events, and a low rate suggests that the quality control and supervision mechanisms prior to publication are functioning effectively. This strong performance indicates a healthy integrity culture and a commitment to methodological rigor that minimizes the need for post-publication corrections due to error or malpractice.
The institution's Z-score of -0.243 reflects a prudent profile, positioned more favorably than the national average of -0.119. This indicates that the university manages its citation practices with more rigor than the national standard, avoiding potential 'echo chambers.' A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this lower-than-average rate suggests the institution's work is receiving sufficient external scrutiny and validation from the global community. This reinforces the perception that its academic influence is based on broad recognition rather than being inflated by internal citation dynamics.
The institution exhibits high exposure to this risk, with a Z-score of 0.774 that is significantly higher than the national average of 0.179. This indicates that the university is more prone to channeling its research into problematic venues than its peers. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This pattern suggests that a significant portion of its scientific production may be appearing in media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need for improved information literacy to avoid 'predatory' practices.
With a Z-score of -1.040, the institution demonstrates notable resilience against a risk that is more prevalent at the national level (country Z-score of 0.074). This suggests that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risk of authorship inflation observed in the wider environment. In fields outside of 'Big Science,' extensive author lists can dilute individual accountability. The university's low score indicates a commendable adherence to transparent and appropriate authorship practices, distinguishing legitimate collaboration from honorary attributions.
The institution's Z-score of -1.338 is in the very low-risk category, showing strong consistency and outperforming the national average of -0.064. The absence of risk signals in this area points to a high degree of scientific autonomy and sustainability. A low gap indicates that the impact of research led by the institution's own authors is robust and not overly dependent on external partners for prestige. This suggests that its excellence metrics are the result of genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, rather than just strategic positioning in collaborations.
The institution's Z-score of -0.009, while in the low-risk category, points to an incipient vulnerability when compared to the national average of -0.430. This score, though not alarming, suggests the university is beginning to show signals that warrant review before they escalate. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator serves as a prompt to ensure that institutional culture continues to prioritize quality over quantity, guarding against risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 demonstrates a state of preventive isolation from national risk dynamics, as the country average stands at a medium-risk 0.119. This indicates the university does not replicate the trend of academic endogamy observed in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the institution mitigates potential conflicts of interest and ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review. This commitment to external validation enhances its global visibility and confirms that internal channels are not used as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication records.
With a Z-score of 0.309, the institution shows a moderate deviation from the national standard, where the risk is low (country Z-score of -0.245). This greater sensitivity to risk suggests a need to review publication practices. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' a practice of dividing a study into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity. This alert suggests a potential focus on volume over significant new knowledge, which can distort the scientific evidence base and merits closer examination.
