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/

Zendy Open

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Insights

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

In a previous article of ours, we explained the reasons why the MNCS and allsimilar per-publication citation indicators should not be used to measureresearch performance, whereas efficiency indicators (output to input) such asthe FSS are valid indicators of performance. The problem frequently indicatedin measuring efficiency indicators lies in the availability of input data. Ifwe accept that such data are inaccessible, and instead resort toper-publication citation indicators, the question arises as to what extentinstitution performance rankings by MNCS are different from those by FSS (andso what effects such results could have on policy-makers, managers and otherusers of the rankings). Contrasting the 2008-2012 performance by MNCS and FSSof Italian universities in the Sciences, we try to answer that question atfield, discipline, and overall university level. We present the descriptivestatistics of the shifts in rank, and the correlations of both scores andranks. The analysis reveals strong correlations in many fields but weakcorrelations in others. The extent of rank shifts is never negligible: a numberof universities shift from top to non-top quartile ranks.

A comparison of university performance scores and ranks by MNCS and FSS