Page 350 - Becoming Metric Wise
P. 350

344   Bibliography


          Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2009a). Extent of type I and type II errors in editorial
             decisions: A case study on Angewandte Chemie International Edition. Journal of
             Informetrics, 3(4), 348 352.
          Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2009b). The luck of the referee draw: The effect of
             exchanging reviews. Learned Publishing, 22(2), 117 125.
          Bornmann, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2017). Skewness of citation impact data and covariates
             of citation distributions: A large-scale empirical analysis based on Web of Science
             data. Journal of Informetrics, 11(1), 164 175.
          Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Daniel, H.-D. (2008). Are there better indices for evaluation
             purposes than the h-index? A comparison of nine different variants of the h-index
             using data from biomedicine. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
             Technology, 59(5), 830 837.
          Borrego, A., Barrios, M., Villaroya, A., & Olle ´, C. (2010). Scientific output and impact
             of postdoctoral scientists: A gender perspective. Scientometrics, 83(1), 93 101.
          Bouyssou, D., & Marchant, T. (2011). Ranking scientists and departments in a consistent
             manner. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(9),
             1761 1769.
          Boyack, K., Klavans, R., & Bo ¨rner, K. (2005). Mapping the backbone of science.
             Scientometrics, 64(3), 351 374.
          Boyack, K., Klavans, R., Paley, W. B., & Bo ¨rner. (2006). A map of science, as part of:
             2006 gallery: Brilliant display. Nature, 444(7122), 985 985.
          Bozeman, B., & Gaughan, M. (2011). How do men and women differ in research colla-
             borations? An analysis of the collaborative motives and strategies of academic research-
             ers. Research Policy, 40(10), 1393 1402.
          Bradford, S. C. (1934). Sources of information on specific subjects. Engineering, 137,
             85 86, reprinted in Journal of Information Science, 10(4), 176 180 (1985).
          Bradford, S. C. (1948). Documentation. London: Crosby Lockwood.
          Brandes, U. (2001). A faster algorithm for betweenness centrality. Journal of Mathematical
             Sociology, 25(2), 163 177.
          Braun, T. (2004). Hungarian priority in network theory. Science, 304(5678), 1745 1745.
          Braun, T., & Gla ¨nzel, W. (1990). United Germany: The new scientific superpower?
             Scientometrics, 19(5 6), 513 521.
          Braun, T., Gla ¨nzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2005). A Hirsch-type index for journals. The
             Scientist, 19(22), 8 8.
          Braun, T., Gla ¨nzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2010). On sleeping beauties, princes and other
             tales of citation distributions .... Research Evaluation, 19(3), 195 202.
          Brin, S., & Page, L. (1998). The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual web search engine.
             Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 30(1 7), 107 117.
          Broadus, R. N. (1953). The literature of educational research. School and Society, 77,
             8 10.
          Brody, T., Harnad, S., & Carr, L. (2006). Earlier web usage statistics as predictors of later
             citation impact. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57
             (8), 1060 1072.
          Brookes, B. C. (1970). The growth, utility, and obsolescence of scientific periodical litera-
             ture. Journal of Documentation, 26(4), 283 294.
          Brooks, T. A. (1985). Private acts and public objects: An investigation of citer motiva-
             tions. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 36(4), 223 229.
          Brown, L. D. (2003). Ranking journals using Social Science Research Network down-
             loads. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 20(3), 291 307.
          Brown, T. (2004). Peer Review and the Acceptance of New Scientific Ideas. Discussion paper
             from a Working Party on equipping the public with an understanding of peer review.
             London: Sense About Science.
   345   346   347   348   349   350   351   352   353   354   355