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, evaluation of the quality of academic research has become anincreasingly important and influential business. It determines, often to alarge extent, the amount of research funding flowing into universities andsimilar institutes from governmental agencies and it impacts upon academiccareers. Policy makers are becoming increasingly reliant upon, and influencedby, the outcomes of such evaluations. In response, university managers areincreasingly attracted to simple indicators as guides to the dynamics of thepositions of their various institutions in league tables. However, these leaguetables are frequently drawn up by inexpert bodies such as newspapers andmagazines, using rather arbitrary measures and criteria. Terms such as"critical mass' and "metrics" are often bandied about without properunderstanding of what they actually mean. Rather than accepting the rise andfall of universities, departments and individuals on a turbulent sea ofarbitrary measures, we suggest it is incumbent upon the scientific communityitself to clarify their nature. Here we report on recent attempts to do that byproperly defining critical mass and showing how group size influences researchquality. We also examine currently predominant metrics and show that these failas reliable indicators of group research quality.

Academic research groups: evaluation of their quality and quality of their evaluation