English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The Eigenfactor Metrics provide an alternative way of evaluating scholarlyjournals based on an iterative ranking procedure analogous to Google's PageRankalgorithm. These metrics have recently been adopted by Thomson-Reuters and arelisted alongside the Impact Factor in the Journal Citation Reports. But dothese metrics differ sufficiently so as to be a useful addition to thebibliometric toolbox? Davis (2008) has argued otherwise, based on his findingof a 0.95 correlation coefficient between Eigenfactor score and Total Citationsfor a sample of journals in the field of medicine. This conclusion is mistaken;here we illustrate the basic statistical fallacy to which Davis succumbed. Weprovide a complete analysis of the 2006 Journal Citation Reports anddemonstrate that there are statistically and economically significantdifferences between the information provided by the Eigenfactor Metrics andthat provided by Impact Factor and Total Citations.

Big Macs and Eigenfactor Scores: Don't Let Correlation Coefficients Fool You