| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.403 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.117 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.456 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.344 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.083 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.887 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.525 | -0.245 |
Mardin Artuklu University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.352, which indicates performance superior to the global average. The institution demonstrates significant strengths and a very low-risk profile in key areas of research practice, including the management of multiple affiliations, hyperprolific authorship, redundant output, and publication in institutional journals. This solid foundation is further evidenced by a minimal gap between its overall impact and the impact of research led by its own faculty, signaling strong scientific autonomy. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's thematic strengths are most prominent in Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, Environmental Science, and Arts and Humanities. However, two areas require strategic attention: a moderate rate of retracted output and a high exposure to publication in discontinued journals. These vulnerabilities directly challenge the institutional mission to uphold "standards of quality" and "social and professional responsibility." Addressing these specific risks through enhanced quality control and researcher training will be crucial to fully align its operational practices with its stated commitment to excellence and moral values, thereby solidifying its position as a leading institution for original and responsible research.
The institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of multiple affiliations, with a Z-score of -1.403 that is significantly below the national average of -0.526. This near-total absence of risk signals indicates a transparent and straightforward approach to authorship and institutional representation, which is even more conservative than the already low-risk national standard. This performance effectively rules out concerns about strategic "affiliation shopping" or attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit, reflecting a culture of clear and honest attribution.
The institution's rate of retracted output (Z-score: 0.117) shows a moderate deviation from the national trend (Z-score: -0.173), indicating a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the average suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to ensure research quality and uphold scientific responsibility.
With a Z-score of -0.456, the institution demonstrates a prudent profile in institutional self-citation, managing its processes with more rigor than the national standard (Z-score: -0.119). This lower-than-average rate indicates a healthy integration with the global scientific community, avoiding the "echo chambers" that can arise from excessive self-validation. This suggests that the institution's academic influence is built on broad external scrutiny and recognition from the global community, rather than being disproportionately inflated by internal citation dynamics.
The institution's rate of publication in discontinued journals (Z-score: 0.344) indicates a high exposure to this risk, surpassing the already moderate national average (Z-score: 0.179). This pattern constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. A high Z-score indicates that a portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks. This suggests an urgent need for enhanced information literacy and guidance for researchers to avoid wasting resources on "predatory" or low-quality publication practices.
The institution displays significant resilience against the national trend of hyper-authored output, with a Z-score of -1.083 compared to the country's medium-risk score of 0.074. This suggests that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating systemic risks prevalent in the environment. The low rate indicates that authorship practices at the institution are well-managed, successfully distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and potentially problematic "honorary" or political authorship, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency in research contributions.
The institution exhibits a very low gap between its overall impact and the impact of research under its direct leadership (Z-score: -0.887), a signal that is notably stronger than the national average (Z-score: -0.064). This absence of a significant gap indicates a high degree of scientific autonomy and sustainability. It strongly suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is built upon genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, rather than being dependent on strategic positioning in external collaborations where it might play a secondary role.
With an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.413, the institution shows a near-total absence of hyperprolific authorship, a profile significantly more conservative than the national standard (Z-score: -0.430). This lack of extreme individual publication volumes, which can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution, suggests a healthy balance between quantity and quality. It indicates that the institutional culture effectively discourages practices such as coercive authorship or data fragmentation, prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over the simple inflation of metrics.
The institution demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation regarding publication in its own journals, with a Z-score of -0.268 in stark contrast to the medium-risk national dynamic (Z-score: 0.119). This indicates that the institution does not replicate the risk of academic endogamy observed elsewhere in the country. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the institution ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, mitigating conflicts of interest and enhancing its global visibility and credibility.
The institution's rate of redundant output is very low (Z-score: -0.525), placing it in a more secure position than the national average (Z-score: -0.245). This absence of significant bibliographic overlap between publications signals a strong commitment to producing substantial and coherent research. It indicates that the institutional culture effectively prevents the practice of dividing a coherent study into "minimal publishable units" to artificially inflate productivity, thereby prioritizing the generation of significant new knowledge over volume.
