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

In the last two decades, scholars have designed various types ofbibliographic related indicators to identify breakthrough-class academicachievements. In this study, we take a further step to look at properties ofthe promising disruptive index, thus deepening our understanding of this indexand further facilitating its wise use in bibliometrics. Using publicationrecords for Nobel laureates between 1900 and 2016, we calculate the DI of NobelPrize-winning articles and its benchmark articles in each year and use themedian DI to denote the central tendency in each year, and compare resultsbetween Medicine, Chemistry, and Physics. We find that conclusions based on DIdepend on the length of their citation time window, and different citation timewindows may cause different, even controversial, results. Also, discipline andtime play a role on the length of citation window when using DI to measure theinnovativeness of a scientific work. Finally, not all articles with DI equalsto 1 were the breakthrough-class achievements. In other words, the DI stands uptheoretically, but we should not neglect that the DI was only shaped by thenumber of citing articles and times the references have been cited, these datamay vary from database to database.

Same data may bring conflict results: a caution to use the disruptive index