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

Citation networks have fed numerous works in scientific evaluation, sciencemapping (and more recently large-scale network studies) for decades. Thevariety of citation behavior across scientific fields is both a research topicin sociology of science, and a problem in scientific evaluation. Normalization,tantamount to a particular weighting of links in the citation network, isnecessary for allowing across-field comparisons of citation scores andinterdisciplinary studies. In addition to classical normalization whichdrastically reduces all variability factors altogether, two tracks of researchhave emerged in the recent years. One is the revival of iterative "influencemeasures". The second is the "citing-side" normalization, whose only purpose isto control for the main factor of variability, the inequality in citingpropensity, letting other aspects play: knowledge export/imports and growth.When all variables are defined at the same field-level, two propositions areestablished: (a) the gross impact measure identifies with the product ofrelative growth rate, gross balance of citation exchanges, and relative numberof references (b) the normalized impact identifies with the product of relativegrowth rate and normalized balance. At the science level, the variance ofgrowth rate over domains is a proxy for change in the system, and the varianceof balance a measure of inter-disciplinary dependences. This opens a newperspective, where the resulting variance of normalized impact, and a relatedmeasure, the sum of these variances proposed as a Change-Exchange Indicator,summarize important aspects of science structure and dynamism. Results based ona decade's data are discussed. The behavior of normalized impact according toscale changes is also briefly discussed.

Citation impacts revisited: how novel impact measures reflect interdisciplinarity and structural change at the local and global level