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

Usage of field-normalized citation scores is a bibliometric standard.Different methods for field-normalization are in use, but also the choice offield-classification system determines the resulting field-normalized citationscores. Using Web of Science data, we calculated field-normalized citationscores using the same formula but different field-classification systems toanswer the question if the resulting scores are different or similar. Sixfield-classification systems were used: three based on citation relations, oneon semantic similarity scores (i.e., a topical relatedness measure), one onjournal sets, and one on intellectual classifications. Systems based on journalsets and intellectual classifications agree on at least the moderate level. Twoout of the three sets based on citation relations also agree on at least themoderate level. Larger differences were observed for the third data set basedon citation relations and semantic similarity scores. The main policyimplication is that normalized citation impact scores or rankings based on themshould not be compared without deeper knowledge of the classification systemsthat were used to derive these values or rankings.

Scores of a specific field-normalized indicator calculated with different approaches of field-categorization: Are the scores different or similar?