| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.863 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.418 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.522 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.078 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.488 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.576 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.665 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.647 | -0.245 |
Istanbul University Cerrahpasa presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.230 that indicates a performance generally aligned with or exceeding national standards. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining very low-risk levels for Multiple Affiliations, Retracted Output, and Output in Institutional Journals, showcasing a strong foundation in ethical collaboration and publication practices. However, areas of medium risk, particularly in Redundant Output, the Gap in Leadership Impact, and Hyper-Authored Output, signal specific vulnerabilities that require strategic attention. These indicators are particularly relevant given the institution's prominent national and regional standing, as evidenced by SCImago Institutions Rankings data, which places it among Turkey's top universities in key fields such as Veterinary (ranked 8th), Medicine (16th), and Dentistry (47th). Although the institution's formal mission statement was not available for this analysis, any pursuit of academic excellence and social responsibility is inherently tied to research integrity. The identified risks, such as potential data fragmentation or dependency on external research leadership, could undermine the credibility and long-term sustainability of its scientific contributions. By proactively addressing these medium-risk areas, Istanbul University Cerrahpasa can fortify its reputation, ensure its research leadership is both impactful and sustainable, and fully align its operational practices with its evident thematic strengths.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.863, which is well below the national average of -0.526. This result reflects a state of low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals is in harmony with the country's generally low-risk standard. This very low rate indicates that the institution's collaborative affiliations are managed with exceptional integrity. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution's data shows no evidence of being used strategically to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” reinforcing the authenticity of its research network.
With a Z-score of -0.418, the institution demonstrates a significantly lower rate of retractions compared to the national average of -0.173. This strong performance suggests a consistent and low-risk profile that aligns with the national environment. A very low rate of retractions is a powerful indicator of effective pre-publication quality control mechanisms and a healthy culture of integrity. It suggests that any retractions are more likely the result of honest corrections of unintentional errors—a sign of responsible supervision—rather than evidence of systemic failures or recurring malpractice that would require managerial intervention.
The institution's Z-score of -0.522 is considerably lower than the national average of -0.119, even though both fall within the low-risk category. This demonstrates a prudent profile, suggesting that the institution manages its citation practices 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 'echo chambers' that can arise from excessive internal validation. This reliance on external scrutiny confirms that its academic influence is driven by recognition from the global community, not by endogamous impact inflation.
The institution's Z-score of 0.078 is notably lower than the national average of 0.179, though both are classified as medium risk. This points to a differentiated management approach, where the institution appears to be moderating a risk that is more common at the national level. Despite this relative control, a medium-risk score remains a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting publication channels. It suggests that a portion of its scientific output may be channeled through media lacking international ethical or quality standards, highlighting an urgent need to enhance information literacy among researchers to avoid reputational damage and the misallocation of resources to predatory practices.
With a Z-score of 0.488, the institution shows a significantly higher incidence of hyper-authored publications compared to the national average of 0.074, placing it in a position of high exposure within a medium-risk context. This pattern, particularly if it appears outside of "Big Science" disciplines where large author lists are common, serves as a signal for potential author list inflation, which can dilute individual accountability. This elevated score warrants a closer examination of authorship practices to distinguish between necessary, large-scale collaborations and the potential for 'honorary' or political authorship that may compromise transparency.
The institution presents a medium-risk Z-score of 0.576, a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.064. This indicates a greater institutional sensitivity to this specific risk factor. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of research led by the institution is comparatively low, signals a potential risk to long-term sustainability. This suggests that a significant portion of the institution's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, stemming from collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership. This finding invites a strategic reflection on building and promoting genuine internal capacity for high-impact research.
The institution's Z-score of -0.665 is substantially lower than the national average of -0.430, positioning it as having a prudent profile within a low-risk national context. This indicates that the institution manages its research environment with more rigor than the national standard. This very low incidence of hyperprolific authors suggests a healthy institutional balance between quantity and quality. It effectively mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without meaningful participation, thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific record over the simple inflation of metrics.
A very low Z-score of -0.268 places the institution in stark and positive contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.119. This demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, where the institution successfully avoids replicating a problematic risk dynamic prevalent in its environment. By minimizing its reliance on in-house journals, the institution ensures its scientific production undergoes independent, external peer review, thus avoiding potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice significantly enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, confirming that its work is validated through standard competitive channels.
The institution's medium-risk Z-score of 0.647 marks a moderate deviation from the low-risk national profile of -0.245, suggesting a greater sensitivity to this issue than its peers. This elevated value serves as an alert for the potential practice of data fragmentation, or 'salami slicing,' where a single coherent study might be divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice can distort the scientific evidence and overburden the peer-review system, warranting a review to ensure that publications consistently represent significant contributions of new knowledge.
