Near East University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Near East University's overall integrity profile, with a score of 1.432, indicates a significant level of exposure to research integrity risks that require strategic attention. While the institution demonstrates a key strength in its minimal reliance on institutional journals, ensuring its output faces external validation, this is contrasted by critical vulnerabilities. Significant risk levels are observed in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, Rate of Retracted Output, and the Rate of Hyperprolific Authors, which are substantially higher than national averages. This pattern of risk amplification suggests that internal pressures or policies may be exacerbating systemic issues present in the country. Despite these challenges, the university showcases clear pockets of excellence, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings data, where it holds top national positions in critical fields such as Dentistry (#1), Veterinary (#1), Computer Science (#2), and Mathematics (#3). However, the identified integrity risks directly challenge the university's mission to achieve "prestigious" status and maintain high "educational quality." Practices that prioritize quantity over quality or inflate institutional credit could undermine its international reputation and contradict its goal of contributing positively to the global scientific community. To safeguard its long-term success, it is recommended that the university leverages its high-performing departments as models of best practice and initiates a comprehensive review of its authorship, publication, and collaboration policies to ensure they are in full alignment with its stated mission of excellence and social responsibility.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of 3.427 in this area, a figure that indicates a significant risk level and markedly amplifies the medium-risk national average of 1.203. This suggests that the university's practices are not merely reflecting a national trend but are intensifying it, pointing to potential systemic drivers within the institution. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, such a disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping." This accentuation of a national vulnerability warrants a review of collaboration and affiliation policies to ensure they promote genuine scientific partnership rather than metric optimization.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 1.225, the university shows a significant rate of retracted publications, a level that considerably exceeds the country's medium-risk score of 0.459. This discrepancy suggests that vulnerabilities in research oversight present in the national system are more pronounced at the institutional level. Retractions are complex, but a rate significantly higher than the average alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This high Z-score suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university's Z-score for institutional self-citation is 0.234, which, while within the medium risk category, is substantially higher than the national average of 0.030. This indicates that the institution is more prone to this risk behavior than its national peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this disproportionately high rate can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This pattern 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.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 1.329 for publications in discontinued journals is significantly higher than the national average of 0.237, placing it in a position of high exposure within a medium-risk national context. This suggests a greater institutional susceptibility to channeling research into questionable outlets. A high proportion of output in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score indicates that a significant portion of scientific production is being directed to 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.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of 1.285, the university's rate of hyper-authored output is considerably more pronounced than the national average of 0.337, even though both fall within the medium risk category. This demonstrates a higher institutional exposure to practices that may inflate author lists. In disciplines outside of 'Big Science', where extensive author lists are not structurally necessary, a high Z-score can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This serves as a signal to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and 'honorary' or political authorship practices that could compromise research integrity.

Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership

The university shows a Z-score of 0.419 in this indicator, revealing a wider gap between its overall impact and the impact of its self-led research compared to the national average of 0.343. This suggests a higher-than-average dependency on external partners for its scientific prestige. A very wide positive gap—where global impact is high but the impact of research led by the institution itself is low—signals a sustainability risk. This value suggests that scientific prestige is dependent and exogenous, not structural, inviting reflection on whether excellence metrics result from real internal capacity or strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of 3.653 represents a significant risk and a critical escalation of the medium-level risk (0.882) observed nationally. This indicates that the university is an outlier and amplifies a national vulnerability to an extreme degree. While high productivity can evidence leadership, 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.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The university demonstrates exemplary performance in this area, with a Z-score of -0.268 that is perfectly aligned with the national average. This indicates a state of integrity synchrony and a complete absence of risk signals related to academic endogamy. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the institution ensures its scientific production is not bypassing independent external peer review. This practice strengthens its global visibility, avoids potential conflicts of interest, and ensures its research is validated through standard competitive channels, representing a significant area of institutional strength.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score for redundant output is 0.409, more than double the national average of 0.186. This highlights a high exposure to this risk factor compared to its peers, even though both operate within a medium-risk environment. Citing previous work is necessary, but massive and recurring bibliographic overlap between simultaneous publications usually indicates data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' This high value alerts to the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, a behavior that distorts available scientific evidence and overburdens the review system by prioritizing volume over significant new knowledge.