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 Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Impact factors (and similar measures such as the Scimago Journal Rankings)suffer from two problems: (i) citation behavior varies among fields of scienceand therefore leads to systematic differences, and (ii) there are no statisticsto inform us whether differences are significant. The recently introduced SNIPindicator of Scopus tries to remedy the first of these two problems, but anumber of normalization decisions are involved which makes it impossible totest for significance. Using fractional counting of citations-based on theassumption that impact is proportionate to the number of references in theciting documents-citations can be contextualized at the paper level andaggregated impacts of sets can be tested for their significance. It can beshown that the weighted impact of Annals of Mathematics (0.247) is not so muchlower than that of Molecular Cell (0.386) despite a five-fold differencebetween their impact factors (2.793 and 13.156, respectively).

Scopus's Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) versus a Journal Impact Factor based on Fractional Counting of Citations