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/

Zendy Plus

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

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Recently, the integrated impact indicator (I3) indicator was introduced wherecitations are weighted in accordance with the percentile rank class of eachpublication in a set of publications. I3 can also be used as a field-normalizedindicator. Field-normalization is common practice in bibliometrics, especiallywhen institutions and countries are compared. Publication and citationpractices are so different among fields that citation impact is normalized forcross-field comparisons. In this study, we test the ability of the indicator todiscriminate between quality levels of papers as defined by Faculty members atF1000Prime. F1000Prime is a post-publication peer review system for assessingpapers in the biomedical area. Thus, we test the convergent validity of I3 (inthis study, we test I3/N - the size-independent variant of I3 where I3 isdivided by the number of papers) using assessments by peers as baseline andcompare its validity with several other (field-normalized) indicators: themean-normalized citation score (MNCS), relative-citation ratio (RCR), citationscore normalized by cited references (CSNCR), characteristic scores and scales(CSS), source-normalized citation score (SNCS), citation percentile, andproportion of papers which belong to the x% most frequently cited papers (PPtopx%). The results show that the PPtop 1% indicator discriminates best amongdifferent quality levels. I3 performs similar as (slightly better than) most ofthe other field-normalized indicators. Thus, the results point out that theindicator could be a valuable alternative to other indicators in bibliometrics.

How well does I3 perform for impact measurement compared to other  bibliometric indicators? The convergent validity of several  (field-normalized) indicators