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

Bibliometric studies often rely on field-normalized citation impactindicators in order to make comparisons between scientific fields. We discussthe connection between field normalization and the choice of a counting methodfor handling publications with multiple co-authors. Our focus is on the choicebetween full counting and fractional counting. Based on an extensivetheoretical and empirical analysis, we argue that properly field-normalizedresults cannot be obtained when full counting is used. Fractional counting doesprovide results that are properly field normalized. We therefore recommend theuse of fractional counting in bibliometric studies that require fieldnormalization, especially in studies at the level of countries and researchorganizations. We also compare different variants of fractional counting. Ingeneral, it seems best to use either the author-level or the address-levelvariant of fractional counting.

Field-normalized citation impact indicators and the choice of an appropriate counting method