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

The size-dependent nature of the so-called group or departmental h-index isreconsidered in this paper. While the influence of unit size on such collectivemeasures was already demonstrated a decade ago, institutional ratings based onthis metric can still be found and still impact on the reputations and fundingof many research institutions. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate thefallacy of this approach to collective research-quality assessment in a simpleway, focusing on the h-index in its original form. We show that randomlyreshuffling real scientometric data (varying numbers of citations) amongstinstitutions of varying size, while maintaining the volume of their researchoutputs, has little effect on their departmental h-index. This suggests thatthe relative position in ratings based on the collective h-index is determinednot only by quality (impact) of particular research outputs but by theirvolume. Therefore, the application of the collective h-index in its originalform is disputable as a basement for comparison at aggregated levels such as toresearch groups, institutions or journals. We suggest a possible remedy forthis failing which is implementable in a manner that is as simple andunderstandable as the h-index itself.

Big fish and small ponds: why the departmental h-index should not be used to rank universities