| A multilevel meta-analysis of studies reporting correlations between the h index and 37 different h index variants L Bornmann, R Mutz, SE Hug, HD Daniel Journal of Informetrics 5 (3), 346-359, 2011 | 346 | 2011 |
| Visualizing the context of citations referencing papers published by Eugene Garfield: A new type of keyword co-occurrence analysis L Bornmann, R Haunschild, SE Hug Scientometrics 114, 427-437, 2018 | 110 | 2018 |
| Citation Analysis with Microsoft Academic SE Hug, M Ochsner, MP Braendle Scientometrics 111 (1), 371–378, 2017 | 101 | 2017 |
| The coverage of Microsoft Academic: Analyzing the publication output of a university SE Hug, MP Brändle Scientometrics 113, 1551-1571, 2017 | 95 | 2017 |
| Criteria for assessing research quality in the humanities: a Delphi study among scholars of English literature, German literature and art history SE Hug, M Ochsner, HD Daniel Research Evaluation 22 (5), 369–383, 2013 | 87 | 2013 |
| Four types of research in the humanities: Setting the stage for research quality criteria in the humanities M Ochsner, SE Hug, HD Daniel Research Evaluation 22 (2), 79-92, 2013 | 77 | 2013 |
| Research Assessment in the Humanities. Towards Criteria and Procedures. M Ochsner, SE Hug, HD Daniel Springer, 2016 | 65* | 2016 |
| A framework to explore and develop criteria for assessing research quality in the humanities SE Hug, M Ochsner, HD Daniel International Journal for Education Law and Policy 10 (1), 1, 2014 | 54 | 2014 |
| Indicators for research quality in the humanities: Opportunities and limitations M Ochsner, SE Hug, HD Daniel Bibliometrie-Praxis und Forschung 1, 2012 | 54 | 2012 |
| The future of research assessment in the humanities: bottom-up assessment procedures M Ochsner, S Hug, I Galleron Palgrave communications 3 (1), 1-12, 2017 | 50 | 2017 |
| Criteria for assessing grant applications: A systematic review SE Hug, M Aeschbach Palgrave Communications 6 (1), 1-15, 2020 | 23 | 2020 |
| Setting the stage for the assessment of research quality in the humanities. Consolidating the results of four empirical studies M Ochsner, SE Hug, HD Daniel Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaften 17 (6 Supplement), 111-132, 2014 | 22 | 2014 |
| The number of linked references of publications in Microsoft Academic in comparison with the Web of Science R Haunschild, SE Hug, MP Brändle, L Bornmann Scientometrics 114, 367-370, 2018 | 18 | 2018 |
| Humanities scholars’ conceptions of research quality M Ochsner, SE Hug, HD Daniel Research assessment in the humanities: Towards criteria and procedures, 43-69, 2016 | 17 | 2016 |
| Entwicklung von Qualitätskriterien für die Forschung in den Geisteswissenschaften–Eine Explorationsstudie in den Literaturwissenschaften und der Kunstgeschichte SE Hug, M Ochsner, HD Daniel Qualität in der Wissenschaft 5 (4), 91-97, 2010 | 12 | 2010 |
| Do peers share the same criteria for assessing grant applications? SE Hug, M Ochsner Research Evaluation 31 (1), 104-117, 2022 | 9 | 2022 |
| Bibliometrics-based heuristics: What is their definition and how can they be studied?-Research note L Bornmann, S Hug El profesional de la información (EPI) 29 (4), 2020 | 9* | 2020 |
| The concordance of field-normalized scores based on Web of Science and Microsoft Academic data: A case study in computer sciences T Scheidsteger, R Haunschild, S Hug, L Bornmann arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.10141, 2018 | 9 | 2018 |
| Research assessment in the humanities: Introduction M Ochsner, SE Hug, HD Daniel Research assessment in the humanities: towards criteria and procedures, 1-10, 2016 | 9 | 2016 |
| Goodbye, Microsoft Academic – Hello, open research infrastructure? A Tay, A Martín-Martín, SE Hug LSE Impact Blog, 2021 | 6 | 2021 |
Michael OchsnerFORS, University of Lausanne, SwitzerlandZweryfikowany adres z evalhum.eu
