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

Despite having an important role supporting assessment processes, criticismtowards evaluation systems and the categorizations used are frequent.Considering the acceptance by the scientific community as an essential issuefor using rankings or categorizations in research evaluation, the aim of thispaper is testing the results of rankings of scholarly book publishers'prestige, Scholarly Publishers Indicators (SPI hereafter). SPI is a public,survey-based ranking of scholarly publishers' prestige (among otherindicators). The latest version of the ranking (2014) was based on an expertconsultation with a large number of respondents. In order to validate andrefine the results for Humanities' fields as proposed by the assessmentagencies, a Delphi technique was applied with a panel of randomly selectedexperts over the initial rankings. The results show an equalizing effect of thetechnique over the initial rankings as well as a high degree of concordancebetween its theoretical aim (consensus among experts) and its empirical results(summarized with Gini Index). The resulting categorization is understood asmore conclusive and susceptible of being accepted by those under evaluation.

Is there agreement on the prestige of scholarly book publishers in the Humanities? DELPHI over survey results