| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.586 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.671 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.126 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.779 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.093 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-2.186 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
2.239 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.230 | -0.245 |
Nisantasi University presents a complex scientific integrity profile, characterized by notable strengths in research autonomy and governance alongside significant risks in specific areas of authorial practice and publication strategy. With an overall score of 0.531, the institution demonstrates robust control in key areas, including a very low dependency on external partners for impact (Gap between Impact), minimal use of institutional journals, and effective management of hyper-authorship. These strengths are foundational. However, they are counterbalanced by a critical alert regarding the Rate of Hyperprolific Authors, which is a severe outlier compared to national trends, and medium-level risks in Multiple Affiliations, Retracted Output, and publication in Discontinued Journals. Thematically, the university excels nationally, with SCImago Institutions Rankings placing it among the top institutions in Turkey for Earth and Planetary Sciences (2nd), Business, Management and Accounting (3rd), Economics, Econometrics and Finance (4th), and Energy (4th). This academic excellence, however, is at odds with the identified integrity risks. The mission to foster "positive science" and "analytical and critical thinking" is directly challenged by practices that prioritize publication volume over quality and rigor. To fully align its operational reality with its ambitious vision, Nisantasi University is advised to undertake a targeted review of its authorship and publication policies, thereby safeguarding its academic reputation and ensuring its contributions are both impactful and unimpeachable.
The institution's Z-score of 1.586 for this indicator shows a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.526. This suggests that the university exhibits a greater sensitivity to the factors leading to multiple affiliations than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the elevated rate at Nisantasi University could signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping." This discrepancy warrants a review of internal policies to ensure that all affiliations are transparent, justified, and contribute substantively to the university's research ecosystem rather than just its metrics.
With a Z-score of 0.671, the university's rate of retractions is moderately higher than the national benchmark of -0.173. This indicates that the institution's quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be facing more challenges than is typical in the country. A rate significantly higher than the average alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. Beyond individual corrections, this pattern suggests a systemic issue, possibly pointing to recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to prevent further reputational damage.
The institution's Z-score of -0.126 is statistically normal and aligns closely with the national average of -0.119. This synchrony indicates that the university's level of self-citation is as expected for its context and size, reflecting a healthy and natural continuity of its established research lines. This result confirms that the institution is not operating within a scientific 'echo chamber' and that its academic influence is not being artificially inflated by endogamous citation practices, but rather is subject to sufficient external scrutiny.
The university's Z-score of 0.779 indicates high exposure to this risk, especially when compared to the national average of 0.179. Although this is a medium-level risk for both, the institution is significantly more prone to this practice than its peers. This constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. The high score indicates that a notable portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for enhanced information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
Nisantasi University demonstrates institutional resilience in this area, with a Z-score of -1.093, which is significantly lower than the national Z-score of 0.074. This suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks of authorship inflation that are more prevalent in the country. This low rate is a positive signal that the institution fosters a culture where author lists are managed with transparency and accountability, successfully distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship practices.
The institution exhibits a very strong performance in this indicator, with a Z-score of -2.186, which is exceptionally low and well below the national average of -0.064. This low-profile consistency demonstrates an absence of risk and aligns with a healthy national standard. A very low gap signals that the university's scientific prestige is not dependent on external partners but is driven by genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership. This reflects a high degree of research sustainability and confirms that its excellence metrics result from its own structural capabilities.
A severe discrepancy is observed in this indicator, with the institution's Z-score at a significant level of 2.239, in stark contrast to the low-risk national average of -0.430. This risk activity is highly atypical and points to a critical anomaly that requires a deep integrity assessment. Extreme individual publication volumes challenge the limits of human capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution. This high value alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record and demand urgent review.
The university demonstrates preventive isolation from national risk dynamics, with a Z-score of -0.268 in a context where the national average is 0.119. The institution does not replicate the risk of academic endogamy observed elsewhere in the country. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the university mitigates potential conflicts of interest and ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review. This practice strengthens its global visibility and confirms that internal channels are not being used as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts without standard competitive validation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.230 for redundant output is statistically normal, aligning almost perfectly with the national average of -0.245. This indicates that the risk level is as expected for its context and that practices like 'salami slicing' are not a systemic issue. The data suggests that the university's researchers are not artificially inflating their productivity by dividing coherent studies into minimal publishable units. This alignment with national norms reflects a focus on producing significant new knowledge rather than prioritizing publication volume.
