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

When a group of individuals creates something, credit is usually dividedamong them. Oddly, that does not apply to scientific papers. The most commonlyused performance measure for individual researchers is the h-index, which doesnot correct for multi-authorship. Each author claims full credit for each paperand each ensuing citation. This mismeasure of achievement is fuelling aflagrant increase in multi-authorship. Several alternatives to the h-index havebeen devised, and one of them, the individual h-index (hI), is logical,intuitive and easily calculated. Correcting for multi-authorship would endgratuitous authorship and allow proper attribution and unbiased comparisons.

The elephant in the room: multi-authorship and the assessment of individual researchers