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

Evaluative bibliometrics compares the citation impact of researchers,research groups and institutions with each other across time scales anddisciplines. Both factors - discipline and period - have an influence on thecitation count which is independent of the quality of the publication.Normalizing the citation impact of papers for these two factors started in themid-1980s. Since then, a range of different methods have been presented forproducing normalized citation impact scores. The current study uses a data setof over 50,000 records to test which of the methods so far presented correlatebetter with the assessment of papers by peers. The peer assessments come fromF1000Prime - a post-publication peer review system of the biomedicalliterature. Of the normalized indicators, the current study involves not onlycited-side indicators, such as the mean normalized citation score, but alsociting-side indicators. As the results show, the correlations of the indicatorswith the peer assessments all turn out to be very similar. Since F1000 focuseson biomedicine, it is important that the results of this study are validated byother studies based on datasets from other disciplines or (ideally) based onmulti-disciplinary datasets.

Methods for the generation of normalized citation impact scores in bibliometrics: Which method best reflects the judgements of experts?