| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.988 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.315 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.806 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.122 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.889 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.773 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.371 | -0.245 |
Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University demonstrates an exemplary profile in scientific integrity, with an overall score of -0.528 that indicates performance significantly above the global average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of multiple affiliations, institutional self-citation, hyperprolific authors, and publication in its own journals, reflecting a culture of transparency, external validation, and quality-focused research. All other indicators register in the low-risk category, consistently outperforming national averages and showcasing robust internal governance. This strong integrity framework provides a solid foundation for its academic achievements, particularly in its highest-ranking thematic areas according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, which include Earth and Planetary Sciences, Dentistry, Energy, and Psychology. This commitment to ethical research practices directly aligns with its mission to serve humanity "through the lens of reason and science" and uphold "universal values." By mitigating integrity risks, the university ensures that its contributions are credible and that it trains "qualified individuals" within an environment of excellence, thereby fulfilling its social responsibility. Maintaining and promoting this outstanding integrity profile should be a core strategic objective, serving as a key differentiator that enhances institutional reputation and attracts high-caliber talent.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.988, a very low value that is notably better than the national average of -0.526. This demonstrates a consistent and low-risk profile that aligns with the national standard for transparency in academic collaboration. The data suggests that the university's affiliations are the result of legitimate researcher mobility and genuine partnerships. The absence of disproportionately high rates indicates that the institution effectively avoids strategic practices like "affiliation shopping," thereby ensuring that institutional credit is earned through authentic collaborative work.
With a Z-score of -0.315, the institution maintains a low rate of retractions, performing more rigorously than the national standard (-0.173). This prudent profile suggests that the university's quality control mechanisms and pre-publication supervision are highly effective. A rate significantly lower than its peers is a strong signal of a healthy integrity culture, indicating that methodological rigor is prioritized and that potential systemic failures or recurring malpractice are successfully being prevented before they can damage the scientific record.
The university's Z-score for this indicator is -0.806, a very low figure that is substantially below the national average of -0.119. This result reflects a healthy pattern of external engagement and validation from the global scientific community. Such a low rate of institutional self-citation confirms that the university is not operating in a scientific 'echo chamber.' Instead, its academic influence is built on broad recognition, effectively mitigating any risk of endogamous impact inflation and demonstrating that its work is integrated into and valued by the wider research landscape.
The institution records a low-risk Z-score of -0.122, demonstrating significant resilience against the medium-risk trend observed nationally (0.179). This suggests that the university's control mechanisms and researcher training are effective in promoting due diligence when selecting publication venues. By successfully filtering out journals that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, the institution protects its reputation and ensures its scientific output is not channeled through 'predatory' or low-quality media, a risk that appears more systemic in its environment.
With a Z-score of -0.889, the university shows a low incidence of hyper-authored publications, a stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.074. This institutional resilience points to a culture that values transparency and individual accountability in authorship. The data suggests a clear distinction is made between legitimate 'Big Science' collaborations and questionable practices like author list inflation or 'honorary' authorships, ensuring that credit is assigned appropriately and reflects genuine intellectual contribution.
The institution's Z-score of -0.773 is significantly better than the national average of -0.064, indicating a prudent and self-reliant research profile. This very low gap signals that the university's scientific prestige is structural and driven by its own internal capacity, rather than being dependent on external partners. This demonstrates strong intellectual leadership, suggesting that the institution's high-impact work is a direct result of its own research excellence, which is a key indicator of long-term scientific sustainability.
The university exhibits a Z-score of -1.413, an exceptionally low value compared to the national average of -0.430. This near-absence of hyperprolific authors is a strong indicator of a healthy research environment focused on quality over quantity. It suggests that the institution successfully discourages practices that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record, such as coercive authorship or assigning credit without meaningful participation, fostering a culture where substantive intellectual contributions are paramount.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a very low reliance on its own journals, effectively isolating itself from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (0.119). This preventive stance demonstrates a strong commitment to independent, external peer review. By avoiding potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, the university ensures its research undergoes rigorous, competitive validation, which enhances its global visibility and reinforces the credibility of its scientific output.
The institution's Z-score of -0.371 indicates a more controlled and prudent approach to publication than the national standard (-0.245). This low rate suggests a focus on publishing complete and impactful studies. By discouraging the practice of fragmenting a coherent study into minimal publishable units, the university upholds the integrity of the scientific evidence base and prioritizes the generation of significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of productivity metrics.
