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

Accurate measurement of institutional research productivity should accountfor the real contribution of the research staff to the output produced incollaboration with other organizations. In the framework of bibliometricmeasurement, this implies accounting for both the number of co-authors and eachindividual's real contribution to scientific publications. Common practice inthe life sciences is to indicate such contribution through the order of authornames in the byline. In this work, we measure the distortion introduced touniversity-level bibliometric productivity rankings when the number ofco-authors or their position in the byline is ignored. The field of observationconsists of all Italian universities active in the life sciences (Biology andMedicine). The analysis is based on the research output of the university staffover the period 2004-2008. Based on the results, we recommend against the useof bibliometric indicators that ignore co-authorship and real contribution ofeach author to research outputs.

Measuring institutional research productivity for the life sciences: the importance of accounting for the order of authors in the byline