| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.523 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.334 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.473 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.435 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.082 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.584 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.245 | -0.245 |
Isparta University of Applied Sciences demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.455 that indicates performance generally superior to the national average. The institution exhibits significant strengths in areas critical to research ethics and sustainability, showing very low risk in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, the Gap between total and led impact, the Rate of Hyperprolific Authors, and the Rate of Output in Institutional Journals. These results signal strong internal governance and a commitment to transparent, autonomous research. However, areas requiring strategic attention are the Rate of Institutional Self-Citation and the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, both of which register a medium level of risk. These vulnerabilities could potentially undermine the institution's mission "to provide education, research, service and solutions at international standards," as endogamous citation patterns and publication in substandard journals conflict with the pursuit of global excellence and societal interaction. This strong integrity foundation aligns well with the institution's notable academic achievements, as evidenced by its high national rankings in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly in Social Sciences (15th), Physics and Astronomy (17th), and Business, Management and Accounting (39th). To fully realize its mission, it is recommended that the University focus on developing targeted policies to mitigate the identified risks, thereby enhancing its international standing and ensuring its research practices are unequivocally aligned with global standards of excellence.
The institution's Z-score of -1.523 indicates a very low risk in this area, performing significantly better than the national average of -0.526. This demonstrates a commendable level of consistency with a low-risk environment, where the absence of concerning signals aligns with and surpasses the national standard. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the exceptionally low rate at the institution suggests that its partnership and affiliation practices are transparent and well-governed, effectively avoiding any strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping.”
With a Z-score of -0.334, the institution maintains a low rate of retracted output, reflecting a more prudent profile than the national average of -0.173. This suggests that the institution manages its quality control processes with greater rigor than the national standard. While some retractions can result from the honest correction of errors, this low value indicates that systemic failures in pre-publication review are unlikely, reinforcing the integrity of its scientific record and demonstrating a strong commitment to quality assurance.
The institution's Z-score of 0.473 reveals a medium risk level for institutional self-citation, representing a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.119. This suggests the center has a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of established research lines. However, this disproportionately high rate can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This value warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than global community recognition.
With a Z-score of 0.435, the institution shows a medium risk level for publishing in discontinued journals, which is notably higher than the national average of 0.179. This indicates a high exposure to this risk, suggesting the center is more prone to showing alert signals than its environment average. This pattern constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. A high Z-score indicates that a significant portion of 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 information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution demonstrates a low risk for hyper-authored output with a Z-score of -1.082, contrasting sharply with the medium-risk national context (Z-score: 0.074). This result points to strong institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate systemic risks that may be more prevalent in the country. This serves as a positive signal that the institution effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and potentially problematic 'honorary' or political authorship practices, thereby upholding individual accountability and transparency in its publications.
The institution's Z-score of -1.584 indicates a very low risk regarding the gap between its total impact and the impact of research under its own leadership, a profile that aligns with and improves upon the low-risk national standard (Z-score: -0.064). This absence of a significant gap is a strong indicator of scientific autonomy and sustainability. It suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and derived from its own internal capacity, not dependent on external partners where it does not exercise intellectual leadership, reflecting a mature and self-sufficient research ecosystem.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution shows a very low rate of hyperprolific authors, a signal of integrity that is consistent with the low-risk national environment (Z-score: -0.430). This absence of risk signals aligns with the national standard and points to a healthy balance between productivity and quality. The data suggests the institution is not exposed to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, thereby prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of quantitative metrics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 signifies a very low rate of publication in its own journals, a clear case of preventive isolation from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score: 0.119). This indicates that the center does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. By not over-relying on in-house journals, the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review. This practice enhances global visibility and confirms that its research is validated through standard competitive channels rather than 'fast tracks' that might inflate CVs without proper scrutiny.
The institution's Z-score for redundant output is -0.245, which is identical to the national average. This perfect alignment indicates a level of risk that is statistically normal for its context and size. The low value suggests that the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, known as 'salami slicing,' is not a significant concern. This reflects a standard and responsible approach to cumulative knowledge building that is in synchrony with national norms.
