| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.046 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.400 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.163 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.146 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.690 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.517 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -0.245 |
Antalya Bilim University demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.433. This performance indicates a strong commitment to ethical research practices, with particular strengths in areas of critical importance. The institution shows very low risk signals for Retracted Output, Hyperprolific Authors, Output in Institutional Journals, and Redundant Output, suggesting effective quality control mechanisms and a culture that prioritizes substantive scientific contributions over mere volume. The primary area for strategic attention is a medium-risk signal in Institutional Self-Citation. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas nationally include Dentistry, Economics, Econometrics and Finance, and Business, Management and Accounting. While the institution's specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, these results demonstrate a clear alignment with the core principles of academic excellence and social responsibility. A foundation of high integrity is essential to fulfilling such a mission, and the isolated alert in self-citation presents an opportunity to further strengthen this alignment. By proactively addressing this indicator, Antalya Bilim University can solidify its reputation for producing high-quality, externally validated research and reinforce its leadership position.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.046, while the national average is -0.526. This score suggests an incipient vulnerability, as the university shows low-level signals of risk activity that are slightly more pronounced than the national standard. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this slight elevation warrants a proactive review to ensure that these affiliations are not being used strategically to inflate institutional credit or for “affiliation shopping,” thereby preventing the issue from escalating.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.400, compared to a national average of -0.173. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency where the complete absence of risk signals aligns with a national environment that already shows minimal activity. This very low score indicates that the quality control mechanisms prior to publication are exceptionally robust and that the institution fosters a strong integrity culture, effectively preventing the systemic failures or recurring malpractice that a higher rate might suggest.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.163, while the national average is -0.119. This moderate deviation indicates that the university shows greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers. While a certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of research lines, this elevated rate can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' It serves as a warning about the 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 scientific community.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.146, in contrast to a national average of 0.179. This result highlights the institution's resilience, as its control mechanisms appear to effectively mitigate systemic risks that are more prevalent in the country. A high proportion of output in such journals is a critical alert, but this university demonstrates strong due diligence in selecting publication channels. This protects its reputation and resources from 'predatory' or low-quality practices, showcasing an institutional capacity to navigate a challenging publishing landscape with integrity.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.690, compared to a national average of 0.074. This score reflects strong institutional resilience, suggesting that internal policies effectively filter out national tendencies toward authorship inflation. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' this institution's low rate outside those contexts indicates a healthy approach to authorship. It successfully avoids the dilution of individual accountability and transparency, distinguishing its collaborative work from practices like 'honorary' or political authorship.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.517, which is significantly lower than the national average of -0.064. This prudent profile suggests that the university manages its collaborative processes with more rigor than the national standard. The minimal gap indicates that the institution's scientific prestige is not dependent on external partners but is driven by its own structural capacity and intellectual leadership. This reflects a sustainable model where excellence metrics are a direct result of genuine internal capabilities.
The institution presents a Z-score of -1.413, far below the national average of -0.430. This signals a state of low-profile consistency, where the institution's complete absence of risk aligns with a national environment that already shows low signals. This extremely low score indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, suggesting that the university effectively discourages practices like coercive authorship or authorship assignment without real participation, thereby prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over inflated metrics.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.268, while the national average stands at 0.119. This demonstrates a clear preventive isolation, as the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the institution sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, enhancing its global visibility and validating its research through standard competitive channels.
The institution presents a Z-score of -1.186, significantly lower than the national average of -0.245. This reflects a low-profile consistency, where the institution's near-total absence of risk signals reinforces a national standard that is already low. This very low value indicates a strong institutional policy against data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' It shows a commitment to publishing coherent, significant studies rather than artificially inflating productivity, a practice that respects the scientific record and the academic review system.
