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

In recent years bibliometricians have paid increasing attention to researchevaluation methodological problems, among these being the choice of the mostappropriate indicators for evaluating quality of scientific publications, andthus for evaluating the work of single scientists, research groups and entireorganizations. Much literature has been devoted to analyzing the robustness ofvarious indicators, and many works warn against the risks of using easilyavailable and relatively simple proxies, such as journal impact factor. Thepresent work continues this line of research, examining whether it is validthat the use of the impact factor should always be avoided in favour ofcitations, or whether the use of impact factor could be acceptable, evenpreferable, in certain circumstances. The evaluation was conducted by observingall scientific publications in the hard sciences by Italian universities, forthe period 2004-2007. Performance sensitivity analyses were conducted withchanging indicators of quality and years of observation.

Citations versus journal impact factor as proxy of quality: Could the latter ever be preferable?