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 Plus

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

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

It is well known that a direct sum of CLS-modules is not, in general, aCLS-module. It is proved that if $M=M_1\oplus M_2$, where $M_1$ and $M_2$ areCLS-modules such that $M_1$ and $M_2$ are relatively ojective (or $M_1$ is$M_2$-ejective), then $M$ is a CLS-module and some known results aregeneralized. Tercan [8] proved that if a module $M=M_{1}\oplus M_{2}$ where$M_{1}$ and $M_{2}$ are CS-modules such that $M_{1}$ is $M_{2}$-injective, then$M$ is a CS-module if and only if $Z_{2}(M)$ is a CS-module. Here we will showthat Tercan's claim is not true.

When an $\mathscr{S}$-closed submodule is a direct summand