References
- Aksnes, D.W. (2003). Characteristics of highly cited papers. Research Evaluation, 12(3), 159–170.
- Aksnes, D.W. (2006). Citation rates and perceptions of scientific contribution. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (JASIST), 57(2), 169–185.
- Aksnes, D.W., Langfeldt, L., & Wouters, P. (2019). Citations, citation indicators, and research quality: An overview of basic concepts and theories. SAGE Open, 9(1). doi:http://dx.doi.org10.1177/2158244019829575
- Aksnes, D.W., Schneider, J.W., & Gunnarsson, M. (2012). Ranking national research systems by citation indicators. A comparative analysis using whole and fractionalised counting methods. Journal of Informetrics, 6(1), 36–43. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2011.08.002
- Basu, A. (2006). Using ISI's ‘Highly Cited Researchers’ to obtain a country level indicator of citation excellence. Scientometrics, 68(3), 361–375. doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0117-x
- Batagelj, V., & Cerinšek, M. (2013). On bibliographic networks. Scientometrics, 96(3), 845–864.
- Blumel, C., & Schniedermann, A. (2020). Studying review articles in scientometrics and beyond: A research agenda. Scientometrics, 124(1), 711–728. doi:10.1007/s11192-020-03431-7
- Bonaccorsi, A., Cicero, T., Haddawy, P., & Hassan, S.U. (2017). Explaining the transatlantic gap in research excellence. Scientometrics, 110(1), 217–241. doi:10.1007/s11192-016-2180-2
- Bornmann, L. (2014). How are excellent (highly cited) papers defined in bibliometrics? A quantitative analysis of the literature. Research Evaluation, 23(2), 166–173. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvu002
- Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.D. (2008). What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of Documentation, 64(1), 45–80. doi:10.1108/00220410810844150
- Bornmann, L., Wagner, C., & Leydesdorff, L. (2015). BRICS countries and scientific excellence: A bibliometric analysis of most frequently cited papers. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(7), 1507–1513. doi:10.1002/asi.23333
- Brainard, J. (2019). Open-access megajournals lose momentum. Science, 365(6458), 1067. doi:10.1126/science.365.6458.1067
- Casadevall, A., & Fang, F.C. (2013). Is the Nobel Prize good for science? The FASEB Journal, 27(12), 4682–4690.
- Danell, R. (2011). Can the quality of scientific work be predicted using information on the author's track record? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(1), 50–60. doi:10.1002/asi.21454
- Dequilettes, D., Garfinkel, S., Ge, B.H., Hugelius, G., Kim, J., Marchesan, S., … Thouvenin, O. (2018). The world at their feet. Nature, 561(7723), S10–S15. doi:10.1038/d41586-018-06622-8
- Docampo, D., & Cram, L. (2019). Highly cited researchers: A moving target. Scientometrics, 118(3), 1011–1025. doi:10.1007/s11192-018-2993-2
- European Commission. (2001). Key Figures 2001. Special edition. Indicators for benchmarking of national research policies. Brussels.
- Ferretti, F., Pereira, A.G., Veertesy, D., & Hardeman, S. (2018). Research excellence indicators: Time to reimagine the ‘making of’? Science and Public Policy, 45(5), 731–741. doi:10.1093/scipol/scy007
- Gallie, W.B. (1955). Essentially Contested Concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 56, 167–198.
- Garfield, E. (1986). Do Nobel Prize winners write citation classics? Current Contents, 23, 3–8.
- Garfield, E. (1992). The 1991-Nobel prize winners were all citation superstars. Current Contents, 5, 3–9.
- Garfield, E., & Welljams-Dorof, A. (1992). Of Nobel class: A citation perspective on high impact research authors. Theoretical Medicine, 13(2), 117–135.
- Gauffriau, M., & Larsen, P.O. (2005). Counting methods are decisive for rankings based on publication and citation studies. Scientometrics, 64(1), 85–93.
- Glänzel, W., & Czerwon, H.-J. (1992). What are highly cited publications? A method applied to German scientific papers, 1980–1989. Research Evaluation, 2(3), 135–141.
- Glenny, A.M., Worthington, H.V., Esposito, M., & Nieri, M. (2009). What are clinical guidelines? European Journal of Oral Implantology, 2(2), 145–148.
- Hallonsten, O. (2016). Big Science Transformed. Science, Politics and Organization in Europe and the United States: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Harzing, A.W. (2013). Document categories in the ISI Web of Knowledge: Misunderstanding the Social Sciences? Scientometrics, 94(1), 23–34. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0738-1
- Lamont, M. (2009). How professors think: Inside the curious world of academic judgment. Harvard University Press.
- Langfeldt, L., Nedeva, M., Sorlin, S., & Thomas, D.A. (2020). Co-existing notions of research quality: A framework to study context-specific understandings of good research. Minerva, 58(1), 115–137. doi:10.1007/s11024-019-09385-2
- Lariviere, V., Gingras, Y., Sugimoto, C.R., & Tsou, A. (2015). Team size matters: Collaboration and scientific impact since 1900. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(7), 1323–1332. doi:10.1002/asi.23266
- Leydesdorff, L., & Park, H.W. (2017). Full and fractional counting in bibliometric networks. Journal of Informetrics, 11(1), 117–120. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2016.11.007
- Li, J.C., Yin, Y., Fortunato, S., & Wang, D.S. (2020). Scientific elite revisited: patterns of productivity, collaboration, authorship and impact. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 17(165). doi:10.1098/rsif.2020.0135
- Li, J.T. (2016). What we learn from the shifts in highly cited data from 2001 to 2014? Scientometrics, 108(1), 57–82. doi:10.1007/s11192-016-1958-6
- Lowry, O.H., Rosebrough, N.J., Farr, A.L., & Randal, R.J. (1951). Protein measurement with the folin phenol reagent. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 193, 265–275.
- Martin, B.R., & Irvine, J. (1983). Assessing basic research: Some partial indicators of scientific progress in radio astronomy. Research Policy, 12, 61–90.
- Merton, R.K. (1979). Foreword. In E. Garfield (Ed.), Citation indexing: Its theory and application in science, technology, and humanities. John Wiley & Sons.
- Moed, H.F. (2005). Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation. Springer.
- Moore, S., Neylon, C., Eve, M.P., O’Donnell, D.P., & Pattinson, D. (2017). “Excellence R Us”: university research and the fetishisation of excellence. Palgrave Communications, 3, 16105. doi:10.1057/palcomms.2016.105
- Nielsen, M.W., & Andersen, J.P. (2021). Global citation inequality is on the rise. Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences of the USA (PNAS). 118 (7), e2012208118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2012208118
- Perianes-Rodriguez, A., Waltman, L., & van Eck, N.J. (2016). Constructing bibliometric networks: A comparison between full and fractional counting. Journal of Informetrics, 10(4), 1178–1195.
- Piro, F.N., Aksnes, D.W., & Rorstad, K. (2013). A macro analysis of productivity differences across fields: Challenges in the measurement of scientific publishing. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(2), 307–320. doi:10.1002/asi.22746
- Plomp, R. (1994). The highly cited papers of professors as an indicator of a research group's scientific performance. Scientometrics, 29(3), 377–393.
- Porter, A.L., Chubin, D.E., & Jin, X.Y. (1988). Citations and scientific progress: comparing bibliometric measures with scientist judgments. Scientometrics, 13(3–4), 103–124.
- Price, D.J.d.S. (1965). Networks of scientific papers. Science, 149, 510–515.
- Schmoch, U. (2020). Mean values of skewed distributions in the bibliometric assessment of research units. Scientometrics, 125, 925–935. doi:10.1007/s11192-020-03476-8
- Seglen, P.O. (1992). The skewness of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43(9), 628–638.
- Seglen, P.O. (1997). Citations and journal impact factors: Questionable indicators of research quality. Allergy, 52(11), 1050–1056.
- Shapin, S. (1989). The invisible technician. American Scientist, 77(6), 554–563.
- Simonton, D.K. (2013). After Einstein: Scientific genius is extinct. Nature, 493(7434), 602. doi:10.1038/493602a
- Stilgoe, J. (2014). Against excellence. The Guardian.
- Tijssen, R., & Winnink, J. (2018). Capturing ‘R&D excellence’: Indicators, international statistics, and innovative universities. Scientometrics, 114(2), 687–699. doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2602-9
- Tijssen, R.J.W., Visser, M.S., & van Leeuwen, T.N. (2002). Benchmarking international scientific excellence: Are highly cited research papers an appropriate frame of reference? Scientometrics, 54(3), 381–397. doi:10.1023/a:1016082432660
- van Leeuwen, T.N., Visser, M.S., Moed, H.F., Nederhof, T.J., & van Raan, A.F.J. (2003). Holy grail of science policy: Exploring and combining bibliometric tools in search of scientific excellence. Scientometrics, 57(2), 257–280. doi:10.1023/a:1024141819302
- Vazire, S. (2017). Our obsession with eminence warps research. Nature, 547(7661), 7. doi:10.1038/547007a
- Wagner, C.S. (2008). The new invisible college: Science for development. Brookings Institution Press.
- Wallace, M.L., Lariviere, V., & Gingras, Y. (2012). A small world of citations? The influence of collaboration networks on citation practices. Plos One, 7(3), e33339. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0033339
- Waltman, L. (2012). An empirical analysis of the use of alphabetical authorship in scientific publishing. Journal of Informetrics, 6(4), 700–711. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2012.07.008
- Web of Science Group. (2018). Highly cited researchers. Identifying top talent in the sciences and social sciences. Retrieved from https://clarivate.com/tag/highly-cited-researchers/
- Wilsdon, J. (2015). We need a measured approach to metrics. Nature, 523(7559), 129. doi:10.1038/523129a
- Wouters, P., Thelwall, M., Kousha, K., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., Rushforth, A., & Franssen, T. (2015). The Metric Tide: Literature Review (Supplementary Report I to the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management).
- Wu, L.F., Wang, D.S., & Evans, J.A. (2019). Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology. Nature, 566(7744), 378–382. doi:10.1038/s41586-019-0941-9
- Wuchty, S., Jones, B.F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316(5827), 1036–1039. doi:10.1126/science.1136099