| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.316 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.146 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.237 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.129 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.230 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.344 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.677 | -0.245 |
Ankara Haci Bayram Veli University demonstrates a solid overall scientific integrity profile, with a global risk score of -0.351 indicating performance that is commendably safer than the global average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its robust governance over authorship and affiliation practices, reflected in very low risk levels for Multiple Affiliations, Hyper-Authored Output, Hyperprolific Authors, and Output in Institutional Journals. These areas showcase a culture of transparency and a commitment to external validation. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas include Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Arts and Humanities, and Economics, Econometrics and Finance. However, areas requiring strategic attention have been identified, particularly in relation to Institutional Self-Citation and Redundant Output, which present a moderate risk. These vulnerabilities could subtly undermine the university's mission to leverage the "transformative power of science" and serve society, as they risk fostering insular academic discourse and prioritizing publication volume over substantive knowledge. To fully align its operational practices with its "pioneering vision," the university is encouraged to leverage its clear strengths in authorship integrity to develop targeted policies that mitigate these specific risks, thereby ensuring its contributions are both impactful and unimpeachably credible.
The institution presents a Z-score of -1.316, a figure significantly lower than the national average of -0.526. This result indicates a very low-risk profile that is even more conservative than the national standard. The absence of risk signals suggests a stable and well-defined research staff. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, the university's exceptionally low rate demonstrates a clear operational model that effectively avoids any ambiguity or strategic inflation of institutional credit through practices like “affiliation shopping,” ensuring that academic contributions are transparently and accurately attributed.
With a Z-score of -0.146, the institution's performance is statistically normal and aligns closely with the national average of -0.173. This low-risk level is what is expected for an institution of its context and size. Retractions are complex events, and a low rate such as this does not suggest systemic failure. Instead, it is indicative of a healthy and responsible scientific process where occasional, unintentional errors are corrected transparently, reflecting functional supervision and a commitment to the integrity of the scientific record rather than a vulnerability in its quality control mechanisms.
The institution's Z-score of 0.237 marks a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.119. This indicates that the university shows a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, this elevated rate could signal the formation of concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This pattern warns of a potential for endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be disproportionately shaped by internal dynamics rather than broader recognition from the global community.
The university's Z-score of 0.129 is slightly better than the national average of 0.179, though both fall within a medium-risk band. This suggests that while publishing in questionable journals is a shared challenge within the country, the institution demonstrates a more differentiated and effective management approach to moderate this risk. A continued presence in such journals constitutes an alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. The university's relative control suggests a more rigorous, though not yet perfect, process for avoiding media that do not meet international standards, thereby reducing its exposure to the severe reputational risks associated with 'predatory' practices.
A Z-score of -1.230 places the institution in a very low-risk category, in stark contrast to the national average of 0.074, which indicates a medium-risk environment. This preventive isolation from national trends is a significant strength. It shows the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics of author list inflation observed elsewhere in the country. This serves as a strong signal of a culture that values individual accountability and transparency, effectively distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship practices.
The institution's Z-score of -0.344 reflects a prudent profile, indicating more rigorous performance than the national standard of -0.064. A low negative score is a positive sign, suggesting that the impact of research led directly by the institution is strong and closely aligned with the impact of its collaborative output. This demonstrates that the university's scientific prestige is not overly dependent on external partners for impact. The result points to a sustainable model where excellence is driven by genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, rather than strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not lead.
With an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.413, the institution reinforces the low-risk national standard (Z-score of -0.430) with even greater conviction. This near-total absence of risk signals related to hyperprolific authors is a strong indicator of a healthy research environment. By avoiding extreme individual publication volumes, the university promotes a balance between quantity and quality, effectively mitigating risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation. This focus ensures that productivity metrics do not compromise the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 (very low risk) represents a clear preventive isolation from the national trend, where the average Z-score is 0.119 (medium risk). This demonstrates that the university is not replicating the risk of academic endogamy observed in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the institution ensures its scientific production bypasses potential conflicts of interest and undergoes independent external peer review. This strategy enhances global visibility and validates research through standard competitive channels, rather than relying on internal 'fast tracks' that might inflate publication counts without rigorous external scrutiny.
The institution's Z-score of 0.677 indicates a moderate risk level, which represents a significant deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.245. This suggests the university is more exposed to practices of data fragmentation than its peers. This high value alerts to the potential practice of dividing coherent studies into 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity metrics. Such a tendency distorts the available scientific evidence and overburdens the peer-review system, signaling a need to reinforce policies that prioritize the publication of significant new knowledge over sheer volume.
