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

We test 16 bibliometric indicators with respect to their validity at thelevel of the individual researcher by estimating their power to predict latersuccessful researchers. We compare the indicators of a sample of astrophysicsresearchers who later co-authored highly cited papers before their firstlandmark paper with the distributions of these indicators over a random controlgroup of young authors in astronomy and astrophysics. We find that field andcitation-window normalisation substantially improves the predicting power ofcitation indicators. The two indicators of total influence based on citationnumbers normalised with expected citation numbers are the only indicators whichshow differences between later stars and random authors significant on a 1%level. Indicators of paper output are not very useful to predict later stars.The famous $h$-index makes no difference at all between later stars and therandom control group.

Bibliometric Indicators of Young Authors in Astrophysics: Can Later Stars be Predicted?