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

Normalization of citation scores using reference sets based on Web-of-ScienceSubject Categories (WCs) has become an established ("best") practice inevaluative bibliometrics. For example, the Times Higher Education WorldUniversity Rankings are, among other things, based on this operationalization.However, WCs were developed decades ago for the purpose of informationretrieval and evolved incrementally with the database; the classification ismachine-based and partially manually corrected. Using the WC "informationscience & library science" and the WCs attributed to journals in the field of"science and technology studies," we show that WCs do not provide sufficientanalytical clarity to carry bibliometric normalization in evaluation practicesbecause of "indexer effects." Can the compliance with "best practices" bereplaced with an ambition to develop "best possible practices"? New researchquestions can then be envisaged.

The Operationalization of "Fields" as WoS Subject Categories (WCs) in  Evaluative Bibliometrics: The cases of "Library and Information Science" and  "Science & Technology Studies"