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

Scientific evaluation is a determinant of how scientists, institutions andfunders behave, and as such is a key element in the making of science. In thisarticle, we propose an alternative to the current norm of evaluating researchwith journal rank. Following a well-defined notion of scientific value, weintroduce qualitative processes that can also be quantified and give rise tomeaningful and easy-to-use article-level metrics. In our approach, the goal ofa scientist is transformed from convincing an editorial board through avertical process to convincing peers through an horizontal one. We argue thatsuch an evaluation system naturally provides the incentives and logic needed toconstantly promote quality, reproducibility, openness and collaboration inscience. The system is legally and technically feasible and can gradually leadto the self-organized reappropriation of the scientific process by thescholarly community and its institutions. We propose an implementation of ourevaluation system with the platform "the Self-Journals of Science"(www.sjscience.org).

Novel processes and metrics for a scientific evaluation rooted in the principles of science - Version 1