| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.387 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.493 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.927 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.451 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.156 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.532 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.741 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.352 | -0.245 |
Altinbas University presents a scientific integrity profile characterized by significant strengths in research governance, alongside specific, targeted areas for improvement. With an overall risk score of 0.235, the institution demonstrates a solid foundation, particularly excelling in areas that reflect a culture of external validation and responsible authorship, such as its very low rates of institutional self-citation, hyper-authored output, and publication in its own journals. These strengths are foundational to its mission of being a "Global university of Turkey." This ambition is further supported by strong national rankings in key thematic areas according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, including Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (19th), Medicine (29th), and Dentistry (37th). However, the mission's credibility is challenged by medium-risk indicators in retracted output, publication in discontinued journals, and redundant output. These vulnerabilities, if unaddressed, could undermine the university's pursuit of global excellence and social responsibility by creating reputational risk and questioning the robustness of its quality assurance processes. To fully realize its global vision, the university is advised to leverage its clear governance strengths to develop targeted interventions that mitigate these specific risks, thereby ensuring its research impact is both significant and unimpeachable.
The university's Z-score for multiple affiliations is -0.387, which, while low, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.526. This subtle difference suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this minor uptick indicates that the institution shows early signals of this activity that could escalate. A proactive review is recommended to ensure that all affiliations are transparent and justified, preventing any potential for strategic "affiliation shopping" aimed at artificially inflating institutional credit.
With a Z-score of 0.493, the university shows a moderate deviation from the national benchmark, which stands at a low-risk -0.173. This indicates a greater sensitivity to risk factors leading to retractions compared to its peers. A rate significantly higher than the average alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing more systemically than elsewhere in the country, pointing to possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation.
The university demonstrates an exceptionally strong performance in this area, with a Z-score of -0.927, far below the country's average of -0.119. This absence of risk signals aligns perfectly with a healthy national standard, reflecting a culture of external validation. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university's very low rate confirms it avoids the "echo chambers" that can inflate impact endogenously. This indicates that its academic influence is genuinely earned through recognition by the global scientific community, not through internal dynamics.
The institution shows high exposure to this risk, with a Z-score of 1.451, significantly higher than the national average of 0.179. This suggests the university is more prone than its peers to channeling research into questionable outlets. This high proportion of output in journals that do not meet international ethical or quality standards constitutes a critical alert. It exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and points to an urgent need for enhanced information literacy and due diligence training for researchers to avoid wasting resources on "predatory" or low-quality publication practices.
Altinbas University effectively isolates itself from the risk of authorship inflation, a practice observed at a medium level nationally. The institution's Z-score of -1.156 stands in stark contrast to the country's score of 0.074. This preventive isolation demonstrates that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics common in its environment. By maintaining low rates of hyper-authorship, the institution upholds a standard of individual accountability and transparency, successfully distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and problematic "honorary" authorship practices.
The institution exhibits a prudent profile in its research collaborations, with a Z-score of -0.532, which is more rigorous than the national standard of -0.064. This indicates a healthy and sustainable research ecosystem. A wide positive gap can signal that an institution's prestige is dependent on external partners rather than its own capabilities. The university's low score suggests that its scientific excellence results from genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, mitigating the risk of maintaining a reputation that is merely a reflection of its collaborators' strength.
The university manages author productivity with more rigor than the national norm, reflected in its Z-score of -0.741 compared to the country's -0.430. This prudent profile indicates a very low incidence of authors with extreme publication volumes. Such a controlled environment suggests a healthy balance between quantity and quality, effectively mitigating risks like coercive authorship or assigning credit without real participation. This focus on meaningful intellectual contribution over sheer volume reinforces the integrity of the institution's scientific record.
The university demonstrates a clear and positive disconnection from the national trend of publishing in institutional journals. Its Z-score of -0.268 contrasts sharply with the country's medium-risk score of 0.119, showing that the institution effectively isolates itself from this risk. By not relying on its own journals, the university avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its research undergoes independent external peer review. This practice enhances its global visibility and confirms that its output is validated through standard competitive channels rather than internal "fast tracks."
A moderate deviation is observed in this indicator, with the university's Z-score at 1.352, while the national context shows a low-risk score of -0.245. This suggests the institution is more sensitive to practices of data fragmentation than its peers. This high value alerts to the potential practice of dividing a coherent study into "minimal publishable units" to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This dynamic, known as "salami slicing," can distort the scientific evidence and overburdens the review system, signaling a need to reinforce policies that prioritize significant new knowledge over publication volume.
