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

Lee, Walsh, and Wang (2015) - based on Uzzi, Mukherjee, Stringer, and Jones(2013) - and Wang, Veugelers, and Stephan (2017) proposed scores based on citedreferences (cited journals) data which can be used to measure the novelty ofpapers (named as novelty scores U and W in this study). Although previousresearch has used novelty scores in various empirical analyses, no study hasbeen published up to now - to the best of our knowledge - which quantitativelytested the convergent validity of novelty scores: do these scores measure whatthey propose to measure? Using novelty assessments by faculty members (FMs) atF1000Prime for comparison, we tested the convergent validity of the two noveltyscores (U and W). FMs' assessments not only refer to the quality of biomedicalpapers, but also to their characteristics (by assigning certain tags to thepapers): for example, are the presented findings or formulated hypotheses novel(tags "new findings" and "hypothesis")? We used these and other tags toinvestigate the convergent validity of both novelty scores. Our study revealsdifferent results for the novelty scores: the results for novelty score U aremostly in agreement with previously formulated expectations. We found, forinstance, that for a standard deviation (one unit) increase in novelty score U,the expected number of assignments of the "new finding" tag increase by 7.47%.The results for novelty score W, however, do not reflect convergent validitywith the FMs' assessments: only the results for some tags are in agreement withthe expectations. Thus, we propose - based on our results - the use of noveltyscore U for measuring novelty quantitatively, but question the use of noveltyscore W.

Do we measure novelty when we analyze unusual combinations of cited  references? A validation study of bibliometric novelty indicators based on  F1000Prime data