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 this article the comparability of knowledge transfer activities\udis discussed by accounting for external impacts. It is shown that factors\udwhich are neither part of the knowledge transfer activity nor part of the\udparticipating institution may have significant impact on the potential\udusefulness of knowledge transfer activities.\ud  \udDifferences in the potential usefulness are leading to different initial\udconditions of the knowledge transfer activities. This needs to be taken into\udaccount when comparing different knowledge transfer activities, e.g., in\udprogram evaluations. This study is focusing on regional climate services at\udthe German Baltic Sea coast. It is based on two surveys and experiences with\udtwo identical web tools applied on two regions with different spatial coverage.  \udThe results show that comparability among science based knowledge transfer\udactivities is strongly limited through several external impacts. The\udpotential usefulness and thus the initial condition of a particular\udknowledge transfer activity strongly depends on (1) the perceived priority\udof the focused topic, (2) the used information channels, (3) the conformity\udbetween the research agenda of service providing institutions and\udinformation demands in the public, as well as (4) on the spatial coverage of a service.\ud  \udIt is suggested to account for the described external impacts for\udevaluations of knowledge transfer activities. The results show that the\udcomparability of knowledge transfer activities is limited and challenge the\udadequacy of quantitative measures in this context. Moreover, as shown in\udthis case study, in particular regional climate services should be\udindividually evaluated on a long term perspective, by potential user groups\udand/or by its real users. It is further suggested that evaluation criteria\udshould be co-developed with these stakeholder groups

On the comparability of knowledge transfer activities – a case study at the German Baltic Sea Coast focusing regional climate services