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

Peer-evaluation based measures of group research quality such as the UK'sResearch Assessment Exercise (RAE), which do not employ bibliometric analyses,cannot directly avail of such methods to normalize research impact acrossdisciplines. This is seen as a conspicuous flaw of such exercises and callshave been made to find a remedy. Here a simple, systematic solution is proposedbased upon a mathematical model for the relationship between research qualityand group quantity. This model manifests both the Matthew effect and aphenomenon akin to the Ringelmann effect and reveals the existence of twocritical masses for each academic discipline: a lower value, below which groupsare vulnerable, and an upper value beyond which the dependency of quality onquantity reduces and plateaus appear when the critical masses are large. Apossible normalization procedure is then to pitch these plateaus at similarlevels. We examine the consequences of this procedure at RAE for a multitude ofacademic disciplines, corresponding to a range of critical masses.

Normalization of peer-evaluation measures of group research quality across academic disciplines