| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.433 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
1.422 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.887 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.808 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.609 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.457 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -0.245 |
Afyonkarahisar Health Sciences University presents a profile of notable contrasts. With a global integrity score of 0.070, the institution demonstrates a robust and commendable performance across the majority of indicators, particularly in areas such as Institutional Self-Citation, Hyperprolific Authorship, and the impact of its led research, where risks are virtually non-existent. This solid foundation is consistent with its strong positioning in key thematic areas, as evidenced by SCImago Institutions Rankings data, particularly in Dentistry and Agricultural and Biological Sciences. However, this overall positive picture is critically undermined by two significant vulnerabilities: a significant-risk level in Retracted Output and a medium-risk level in publications within Discontinued Journals. These issues directly challenge the core tenets of academic excellence and social responsibility inherent to any university's mission, as they compromise the reliability and long-term value of its scientific contributions. To safeguard its reputation and build upon its clear strengths, it is imperative for the institution to implement targeted interventions that address these specific weaknesses, thereby ensuring its operational integrity fully aligns with its academic ambitions.
The institution demonstrates an exceptionally low risk in this area, with a Z-score of -1.433, which is significantly healthier than the national average of -0.526. This result indicates a clear and consistent affiliation policy that aligns with the low-risk national standard. The data suggests that the institution's collaborative practices are transparent and well-managed, showing no signs of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” thereby reinforcing the legitimacy of its research partnerships.
A critical alert is raised by the institution's Z-score of 1.422, which represents a significant risk and stands in stark contrast to the low-risk national average of -0.173. This severe discrepancy points to an atypical pattern of research integrity issues that are not representative of the broader national context. A rate this high suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. Beyond isolated cases of honest error, this value indicates a profound vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, pointing to possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires an immediate and deep qualitative assessment by management.
With a Z-score of -0.887, the institution shows a very low rate of self-citation, positioning it favorably against the national average of -0.119. This demonstrates a healthy pattern of external scientific engagement and validation. The absence of risk signals in this area confirms that the institution is not operating within a scientific 'echo chamber,' successfully avoiding the risk of endogamous impact inflation. Its academic influence is therefore shown to be driven by recognition from the global community rather than by internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of 0.808 indicates a medium level of risk, which is notably more pronounced than the national average of 0.179, despite both being in the same risk category. This suggests the institution has a higher exposure to this particular vulnerability than its peers. A high proportion of publications in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This pattern indicates that a significant 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 signaling an urgent need for improved information literacy to avoid predatory practices.
The institution maintains a low-risk profile with a Z-score of -0.609, demonstrating effective management in an area where the national context shows a medium risk (Z-score 0.074). This suggests a notable degree of institutional resilience, where internal controls appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks observed across the country. The data indicates that the institution effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration in certain fields and problematic 'honorary' or political authorship practices, thereby preserving individual accountability.
With a Z-score of -1.457, the institution exhibits a very low-risk profile, far below the national average of -0.064. This excellent result signals that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and built upon its own capabilities. The strong alignment between its overall impact and the impact of research led by its own authors indicates a high degree of scientific autonomy and internal capacity, confirming that its excellence metrics are not dependent on an exogenous or strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 reflects a near-total absence of hyperprolific authors, a figure that is substantially better than the already low-risk national average of -0.430. This is a strong indicator of a healthy research environment that prioritizes substance over sheer volume. This low rate mitigates concerns about potential imbalances between quantity and quality, and avoids risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, reinforcing the integrity of its scientific record.
The institution shows a very low-risk Z-score of -0.268, effectively isolating itself from the medium-level risk dynamic observed at the national level (Z-score 0.119). This preventive stance demonstrates a commitment to external validation and global visibility. By not relying on its own journals, the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production bypasses internal 'fast tracks' and is instead subjected to independent, competitive peer review, which strengthens its credibility.
With a Z-score of -1.186, the institution demonstrates a very low risk of redundant publication, performing significantly better than the national average of -0.245. This result reflects a commendable focus on publishing complete and coherent studies. The absence of this risk signal indicates that the institution actively discourages the practice of dividing research into 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity, thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific evidence base and prioritizing the generation of significant new knowledge.
