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

Governments sometimes need to analyse sets of research papers within a fieldin order to monitor progress, assess the effect of recent policy changes, oridentify areas of excellence. They may compare the average citation impacts ofthe papers by dividing them by the world average for the field and year. Sincecitation data is highly skewed, however, simple averages may be too impreciseto robustly identify differences within, rather than across, fields. Inresponse, this article introduces two new methods to identify nationaldifferences in average citation impact, one based on linear modelling fornormalised data and the other using the geometric mean. Results from a sampleof 26 Scopus fields between 2009-2015 show that geometric means are the mostprecise and so are recommended for smaller sample sizes, such as for individualfields. The regression method has the advantage of distinguishing betweennational contributions to internationally collaborative articles, but hassubstantially wider confidence intervals than the geometric mean, underminingits value for any except the largest sample sizes.

More Precise Methods for National Research Citation Impact Comparisons