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

It is shown that under certain circumstances in particular for small datasetsthe recently proposed citation impact indicators I3(6PR) and R(6,k) behaveinconsistently when additional papers or citations are taken intoconsideration. Three simple examples are presented, in which the indicatorsfluctuate strongly and the ranking of scientists in the evaluated group issometimes completely mixed up by minor changes in the data base. The erraticbehavior is traced to the specific way in which weights are attributed to thesix percentile rank classes, specifically for the tied papers. For 100percentile rank classes the effects will be less serious. For the 6 classes itis demonstrated that a different way of assigning weights avoids theseproblems, although the non-linearity of the weights for the differentpercentile rank classes can still lead to (much less frequent) changes in theranking. This behavior is not undesired, because it can be used to correct fordifferences in citation behavior in different fields. Remaining deviations fromthe theoretical value R(6,k) = 1.91 can be avoided by a new scoring rule, thefractional scoring. Previously proposed consistency criteria are amended byanother property of strict independence which a performance indicator shouldaim at.

Inconsistencies of Recently Proposed Citation Impact Indicators and how to Avoid Them