Participants
Data of 271 academic staff from 65 institutions were analyzed. Of the participants, 209 (87.1%) continued on their positions and 31 (12.9%) were dismissed with the decree laws after the 2016 coup attempt. On the other hand, 31 assistant professors were hired after the aforementioned incident.
Five of the institutions (1.8%) were private, while 266 (98.2%) were public-origin. Gender distributions within the study were 43.2% females (n = 117) and 56.8% (n = 154) males. The mean age (±SD) of the participants was 47.76±8.43 years, ranging from 28 to 66 years.
Descriptive findings
The mean number of total publications during the three recent measurement periods demonstrated an increase of 29.6% from 2009–2012 to 2013–2016 period, while an increase of 5.1% was observed from 2013–2016 to 2017–2020 (Fig. 1).
Citation information were available for 129 academics. The mean (±SD) number of total citations, H-index, and i10-index were 741.61±1185.49, 11.94±9.02, and 16.68±22.78, respectively. Concerning the H-indexes, 21 (7.7%) academics had 20 or above values. Also, 33 participants (12.1%) had i10 indexes of 20 or above. Only 13 participants (4.7%) had i10 indexes of 40 and above. On the other hand, while there was one scholar with 8706 citations, most participants had less than 1000 total citations; only 26 scholars (9.5%) had a total of 1000 citations or more.
Outcomes
There were significant differences concerning the proportions of sex, academic title, and institute category between the dismissed academics and others. All five academics from private universities lost their job because their institutions were closed by decree laws (Table 1).
Table 1
Baseline characteristics of the participants compared between the groups (N = 271)
| | Hired before 2016-Purged | Hired before 2016-Not purged | Hired after 2016 | χ2 | p |
Sex | Female | 6a | 96b | 15b | 8.161 | 0.017 |
| 19.4% | 45.9% | 48.4% | | |
Male | 25a | 113b | 16b | | |
| | 80.6% | 54.1% | 51.6% | | |
Title | Assist. Prof. | 6a | 36a | 27b | 70.603 | < 0.001 |
| 19.4% | 17.2% | 87.1% | | |
Assoc. Prof. | 10a | 58a | 1b | | |
| 32.3% | 27.8% | 3.2% | | |
Prof. | 15a | 115a | 3b | | |
| | 48.4% | 55.0% | 9.7% | | |
Institute Category | Public | 26a | 209b | 31b | 20.025* | < 0.001 |
| 83.9% | 100.0% | 100.0% | | |
Private | 5a | 0b | 0b | | |
| | 16.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% | | |
*Fisher’s exact test. Each subscript letter denotes a subset of Group categories whose column proportions do not differ significantly from each other at the 0.05 level. |
The mean ages of the recently hired academics were significantly lower compared to the others. Also, there were significant differences in the mean total number of citations, H-index, i10-index, number of publications before 2008, number of publications between 2009–2012, number of publications between 2013–2016, number of publications between 2017–2020, and total number of publications between the groups (Table 2). Post-hoc comparisons demonstrated that most of the differences were caused by the recently hired academics. In general, the dismissed academics had better performance indicators than their non-dismissed peers. However, significant differences were observed concerning the mean number of total publications before 2008 (Tamhane p = 0.021) and publications between 2013–2016 (Tamhane p = 0.030).
Table 2
Comparison of the mean academic performance scores between the groups (N = 271)
| Group | | |
Hired before 2016-dismisssed | Hired before 2016-not dismissed | Hired after 2016 | | |
Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | F/Z | p |
Age | 47.77 | 7.70 | 48.89 | 8.22 | 40.19 | 6.65 | 15.937* | < 0.001 |
Total number of citations | 1251.33 | 954.68 | 753.92 | 1240.62 | 67.00 | 107.43 | 2.986* | 0.054 |
H-index | 18.17 | 7.47 | 11.93 | 8.86 | 5.18 | 7.70 | 6.446* | 0.002 |
i10-index | 29.92 | 21.11 | 16.75 | 23.28 | 1.55 | 1.44 | 4.712* | 0.011 |
Publications before 2008 | 37.81 | 39.69 | 16.83 | 23.85 | 1.71 | 3.93 | 44.343# | < 0.001 |
Publications between 2009–2012 | 32.58 | 48.00 | 13.01 | 25.26 | 1.65 | 4.10 | 56.317# | < 0.001 |
Publications between 2013–2016 | 42.06 | 46.24 | 18.83 | 26.03 | 4.32 | 6.23 | 43.673# | < 0.001 |
Publications between 2017–2020 | 23.48 | 28.03 | 22.45 | 26.33 | 7.55 | 9.48 | 19.713# | < 0.001 |
Total number of publications | 135.94 | 143.09 | 71.11 | 90.17 | 15.23 | 16.39 | 52.263# | < 0.001 |
SD: Standard deviation. *One-way ANOVA, #Kruskal-Wallis test |
The number of publications of scholars hired before 2016 and dismissed were significantly higher before 2008, between 2009 and 2012, as well as between 2013 and 2016 compared to scholars hired before 2016 and not purged. On the other hand, this difference was not significant during the 2017–2020 period. Also, the total number of citations, H-index, and i10-index values were significantly better in the purged individuals (Table 3).
Table 3
Comparison of the scientific indices between the purged and non-purged groups
| Groups | |
Hired before 2016-purged | Hired before 2016-not purged | Test | p |
Total number of citations (n 12/106) | 1251.33±954.68 | 753.92±1240.61 | 2.903* | 0.004 |
H-index (n 12/106) | 18.17±7.46 | 11.93±8.86 | 2.341# | 0.021 |
i10-index (n 12/106) | 29.92±21.11 | 16.75±23.27 | 3.048* | 0.002 |
Publications before 2008 (n 31/209) | 37.81±39.69 | 16.83±23.84 | 3.625* | < 0.001 |
Publications between 2009–2012 (n 31/209) | 32.58±48.00 | 13.01±25.25 | 4.541* | < 0.001 |
Publications between 2013–2016 (n 31/209) | 42.06±46.23 | 18.83±26.02 | 3.502* | < 0.001 |
Publications between 2017–2020 (n 31/209) | 23.48±28.02 | 22.45±26.32 | 0.535* | 0.592 |
Total number of publications (n 31/209) | 135.94±143.08 | 71.11±90.16 | 3.795* | < 0.001 |
Values represent mean±standard deviations. *Mann-Whitney U test, #Independent samples t-test, |
While there was a gradual increase in academic performance markers until 2016, a decline was observed afterwards in the dismissed academics. Also, despite a decrease after 2016, the purged academics had the highest number of publications compared to the other groups (Fig. 2). On the other hand, although the purged academics had relatively higher performance indicators in the previous years, they experienced a 44.2% loss (from 42.1 to 23.5) in the number of publications after 2016, while their peers had an increase of 19.1% (from 18.8 to 22.4) (Fig. 2).
Furthermore, low academic performance indices were observed in the recently hired academics. Their mean number of citations was 67.0. As a more substantial finding, there were four academics (3 non-purged and 1 recently hired) with no publications at all and 8 academics (5 non-purged and 3 recently hired) with only one publication indexed by Google Scholar.
Comparison of the repeated measures on 2009–2012, 2013–2016, and 2017–2020 demonstrated a significant change in the total number of publications over time (Friedman Test Chi-Square = 79.881, p < 0.001) (Fig. 2).
Compared to the non-purged peers, the purged individuals had significantly higher number of publications in the 2009–2012 and 2013–2016 periods (Mann-Whitney U Z; p, 4.541; <0.001 and 3.502; <0.001, respectively). However, the difference in the mean number of total publications in these two groups were not significant for the 2017–2020 period (Mann-Whitney U Z = 0.535, p = 0.592) (Fig. 2).
Further analysis of the data demonstrated a significant decline in the number of publications of the purged after 2016 (Wilcoxon Z = 3.391, p = 0.001), parallel to significant increases in the publications of the non-dismissed and recently hired group (Wilcoxon Z; p, 3.594; <0.001 and 2.303; 0.021, respectively) (Fig. 2).