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 Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

It is generally agreed that the best way to handle multiauthored papers is to assign credit proportionally. Thus, if a paper is written by two authors, each would get half credit. Three authors would get a third each, and so on. This has been proposed by Lindsey (1980); see Egghe and Rousseau (1990, 111.2.4.2) for more details. This method of counting is called “adjusted counts” or “fractional counts.” Other possible methods are “normal counts,” which gives full credit to all contributors and “straight counts,” which takes no account of multiple authorship and allocates the paper to the first author. However, very few, if any, papers have been published which study the authorship distribution when using adjusted counts. Further, Bookstein (1990) has shown that under certain hypotheses, it does not matter which method one uses: if one finds a Lotka distribution for one method of counting, one also finds a Lotka distribution for any other method. This result is one aspect of the so-called robustness property of Lotka’s law (see also Bookstein, 1977, 1991). More precisely, Bookstein (1990) writes:

Breakdown of the Robustness Property of Lotka's Law: The Case of Adjusted Counts for Multiauthorship Attribution