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

National research assessment exercises are conducted in different nationsover varying periods. The choice of the publication period to be observed hasto address often contrasting needs: it has to ensure the reliability of theresults issuing from the evaluation, but also reach the achievement of frequentassessments. In this work we attempt to identify which is the most appropriateor optimal publication period to be observed. For this, we analyze thevariation of individual researchers' productivity rankings with the length ofthe publication period within the period 2003-2008, by the over 30,000 Italianuniversity scientists in the hard sciences. First we analyze the variation inrankings referring to pairs of contiguous and overlapping publication periods,and show that the variations reduce markedly with periods above three years.Then we will show the strong randomness of performance rankings overpublication periods under three years. We conclude that the choice of a threeyear publication period would seem reliable, particularly for physics,chemistry, biology and medicine.

What is the appropriate length of the publication period over which to assess research performance?