| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.603 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.456 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.337 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.177 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.254 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.247 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.118 | -0.245 |
Eskisehir Technical University demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.416, which indicates a performance significantly stronger than the baseline. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptional control over authorship practices and publication ethics, with very low risk signals in hyperprolific authorship, hyper-authorship, and output in institutional journals. This foundation of integrity strongly supports its leading national positions in key research areas, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly in Energy (46th in Turkey), Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (48th), Environmental Science (52nd), and Computer Science (54th). However, two areas require strategic attention: a moderate rate of publication in discontinued journals, a challenge shared at the national level, and a rate of redundant output that deviates from the national trend. These vulnerabilities, if unaddressed, could subtly undermine the university's mission to "create value in society" and lead a "sustainable future," as they risk prioritizing publication volume over the substantive impact that defines true academic excellence. By leveraging its clear strengths in research governance to mitigate these specific risks, the university can further solidify its role as a national leader committed to transparent and high-impact scientific advancement.
The institution exhibits a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.603, which is more rigorous than the national average of -0.526. This indicates that the university's management of researcher affiliations is well-controlled and operates with greater caution than the national standard. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate outcome of collaboration and researcher mobility, the university’s lower-than-average rate suggests effective policies are in place to ensure that institutional credit is assigned accurately, successfully avoiding practices like "affiliation shopping" that can artificially inflate an institution's perceived contribution.
With a Z-score of -0.456, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of retracted publications, a signal of strong pre-publication quality control that surpasses the low-risk national benchmark (-0.173). This near-absence of risk signals is consistent with a healthy research environment. Retractions can sometimes signify responsible error correction, but a minimal rate like this strongly suggests that the university's quality assurance mechanisms are systemically effective, preventing the methodological or ethical failures that often lead to such outcomes and reinforcing a culture of integrity.
The university maintains a Z-score of -0.337 in institutional self-citation, indicating a more prudent and externally-focused approach than the national average of -0.119. This demonstrates a healthy integration with the global scientific community. While some self-citation is natural for developing research lines, the institution’s controlled rate shows it effectively avoids the "echo chambers" that can arise from excessive internal validation. This suggests that the university's academic influence is built on broad recognition rather than being inflated by endogamous citation dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of 0.177 is nearly identical to the national average of 0.179, pointing to a systemic pattern of risk shared across the country. This alignment suggests that the moderate rate of publication in discontinued journals is likely influenced by broader, national-level factors or information gaps rather than a unique institutional vulnerability. Nevertheless, this score serves as an alert regarding due diligence in selecting publication venues. It indicates that a portion of the university's research is being channeled through media that may not meet international quality standards, posing a reputational risk and highlighting a need for enhanced information literacy to prevent the misallocation of research efforts to predatory or low-quality outlets.
Eskisehir Technical University shows a remarkable preventive isolation from national trends, with a Z-score of -1.254 in a country where this indicator is a medium-level risk (0.074). This demonstrates that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. While extensive author lists are legitimate in "Big Science," the university’s very low score outside these contexts confirms a strong culture of accountability and transparency in authorship, effectively preventing practices like author list inflation or the inclusion of "honorary" authors and ensuring that credit is assigned appropriately.
The institution displays a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.247, which is notably better than the national average of -0.064. This negative gap indicates that the impact of research led by the university's own authors is strong and self-sufficient. A wide positive gap can signal a dependency on external partners for prestige, but this result confirms that the institution's scientific excellence is derived from genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, mitigating sustainability risks and proving its structural research strength.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution shows a near-total absence of hyperprolific authors, a sign of robust integrity that is significantly stronger than the already low-risk national standard (-0.430). This low-profile consistency underscores a healthy balance between productivity and quality. Extreme publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution, but this result indicates that the university successfully avoids the risks of coercive authorship or metric-driven behaviors, prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over sheer publication counts.
The university demonstrates a clear preventive isolation from national practices, with a Z-score of -0.268 in a country where publishing in institutional journals is a medium-level risk (0.119). This very low rate signifies a strong commitment to external, independent peer review. By avoiding over-reliance on its own journals, the institution sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its research, confirming that its scientific output is tested against international standards rather than being fast-tracked through internal channels.
The institution's Z-score of 0.118 represents a moderate deviation from the national standard, which sits at a low-risk level (-0.245). This indicates that the university shows a greater sensitivity to this particular risk factor than its national peers. The score serves as an alert for the practice of "salami slicing," where a single study may be fragmented into minimal publishable units to inflate productivity metrics. This dynamic not only overburdens the peer-review system but also distorts the scientific record, suggesting a need to review publication incentives to ensure they reward significant new knowledge over publication volume.
