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 Tools annual

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 Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The 2004–2010  VQR  ( R esearch  Q uality  E valuation), completed in  J uly 2013, was  I taly's second national research assessment exercise. The  VQR  performance evaluation followed a pattern also seen in other nations, as it was based on a selected subset of products. In this work, we identify the exercise's methodological weaknesses and measure the distortions that result from them in the university performance rankings. First, we create a scenario in which we assume the efficient selection of the products to be submitted by the universities and, from this, simulate a set of rankings applying the precise  VQR  rating criteria. Next, we compare these “ VQR  rankings” with those that would derive from the application of more‐appropriate bibliometrics. Finally, we extend the comparison to university rankings based on the entire scientific production for the period, as indexed in the Web of Science.

The VQR , I taly's second national research assessment: Methodological failures and ranking distortions