Page 367 - Becoming Metric Wise

361
Bibliography

Meho, L. I., & Yang, K. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of
LIS faculty: Web of science versus Scopus and Google Scholar. Journal of the American
Society for Information Science & Technology, 58(13), 2105 2115.
Merton, R. K. (1942). The normative structure of science. In R. K. Merton (Ed.), The
sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations (p. 1973). Chicago (IL):
University of Chicago Press.
Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56 63.
Merton, R. K. (1988). The Matthew effect in science II. Cumulative advantage and the
symbolism of intellectual property. Isis, 79(4), 606 623.
Milgram, S. (1967). The small world problem. Psychology Today, 1(1), 61 67.
Milo, R., Shen-Orr, S., Itzkovitz, S., Kashtan, N., Chklovskii, D., & Alon, U. (2002).
Network motifs: Simple building blocks of complex networks. Science, 298(5594),
824 827.
Milojevi´ c, S., Radicchi, F., & Bar-Ilan, J. (2017). Citation success index 2 An intuitive
pair-wise journal comparison metric. Journal of Informetrics, 11(1), 223 231.
Mingers, J. (2014). Problems with the SNIP indicator. Journal of Informetrics, 8(4), 890 894.
Moed, H. F. (2005a). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Dordrecht (the Netherlands):
Springer.
Moed, H. F. (2005b). Statistical relationships between downloads and citations at the level
of individual documents within a single journal. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, 56(10), 1088 1097.
Moed, H. F. (2007). The effect of “Open Access” upon citation impact: An analysis of
ArXiv’s condensed matter section. Journal of the American Society for Information Science
and Technology, 58(13), 2047 2054.
Moed, H. F. (2010). Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals. Journal of
Informetrics, 4(3), 265 277.
Moed, H. F. (2012). Does open access publishing increase citation or download rates?
Research Trends, 28,3 4.
Moed, H. F. (2016). Comprehensive indicator comparisons intelligible to non-experts:
The case of two SNIP versions. Scientometrics, 106(1), 51 65.
Moed, H. F. (2017). A critical comparative analysis of five world university rankings.
Scientometrics, 110(2), 967 990.
Moed, H. F., Burger, W. J. M., Frankfort, J. G., & van Raan, A. F. J. (1983). On the mea-
surement of research performance: The use of bibliometric indicators. University of Leiden,
ISBN 90-9000552-8.
Moed, H. F., Burger, W. J. M., Frankfort, J. G., & van Raan, A. F. J. (1985a). The use of
bibliometric data for the measurement of university research performance. Research
Policy, 14(3), 131 149.
Moed, H. F., Burger, W. J. M., Frankfort, J. G., & van Raan, A. F. J. (1985b). A
comparative-study of bibliometric past performance analysis and peer judgement.
Scientometrics, 8(3 4), 149 159.
Moed, H. F., Gla ¨nzel, W., & Schmoch, U. (Eds.), (2004). Handbook of quantitative sci-
ence and technology research. The Use of Publication and Patent Statistics in Studies of
S&T Systems. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Moed, H. F., & Plume, A. (2011). The multi-dimensional research assessment matrix.
Research Trends, 23,5 7.
Molinari, J.-F., & Molinari, A. (2008). A new methodology for ranking scientific institu-
tions. Scientometrics, 75(1), 163 174.
Mongeon, P., & Larivie `re, V. (2014). The consequences of retractions for co-authors:
Scientific fraud and error in biomedicine. In E. Noyons (Ed.), Context counts:
Pathways to master big and little data. Proceedings of the STI conference 2014 Leiden
(pp. 404 410). Leiden: Universiteit Leiden, CWTS.