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

In the case of the scientometric evaluation of multi- or interdisciplinaryunits one risks to compare apples with oranges: each paper has to assessed incomparison to an appropriate reference set. We suggest that the set of citingpapers first can be considered as the relevant representation of the field ofimpact. In order to normalize for differences in citation behavior amongfields, citations can be fractionally counted proportionately to the length ofthe reference lists in the citing papers. This new method enables us to compareamong units with different disciplinary affiliations at the paper level andalso to assess the statistical significance of differences among sets.Twenty-seven departments of the Tsinghua University in Beijing are thuscompared. Among them, the Department of Chinese Language and Linguistics isupgraded from the 19th to the second position in the ranking. The overallimpact of 19 of the 27 departments is not significantly different at the 5%level when thus normalized for different citation potentials.

Fractional counting of citations in research evaluation: An option for cross- and interdisciplinary assessments