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

Two methods for comparing impact factors and citation rates across fields ofscience are tested against each other using citations to the 3,705 journals inthe Science Citation Index 2010 (CD-Rom version of SCI) and the 13 fieldcategories used for the Science and Engineering Indicators of the US NationalScience Board. We compare (i) normalization by counting citations in proportionto the length of the reference list (1/N of references) with (ii) rescaling bydividing citation scores by the arithmetic mean of the citation rate of thecluster. Rescaling is analytical and therefore independent of the quality ofthe attribution to the sets, whereas fractional counting provides an empiricalstrategy for normalization among sets (by evaluating the between-groupvariance). By the fairness test of Radicchi & Castellano (2012a), rescalingoutperforms fractional counting of citations for reasons that we consider.

Field-normalized Impact Factors: A Comparison of Rescaling versus Fractionally Counted IFs