| Mapping the impact of papers on various status groups in excellencemapping.net: a new release of the excellence mapping tool based on citation and reader scores. | 0 | 0.34 | 2021 |
| MHq indicators for zero-inflated count data—A response to the comment by Smolinsky (in press) | 1 | 0.39 | 2019 |
| How to consider fractional counting and field normalization in the statistical modeling of bibliometric data: A multilevel Poisson regression approach | 0 | 0.34 | 2019 |
| Identifying single influential publications in a research field: New analysis opportunities of the CRExplorer. | 3 | 0.41 | 2018 |
| MHq indicators for zero-inflated count data – A response to Smolinsky and Marx (2018) | 1 | 0.42 | 2018 |
| The bibliometric quotient (BQ), or how to measure a researcher's performance capacity: A Bayesian Poisson Rasch model. | 0 | 0.34 | 2018 |
| Are there any frontiers of research performance? Efficiency measurement of funded research projects with the Bayesian stochastic frontier analysis for count data. | 1 | 0.36 | 2017 |
| The effect of the "very important paper" VIP designation in Angewandte Chemie International Edition on citation impact: A propensity score matching analysis | 2 | 0.37 | 2017 |
| Excellence networks in science: A Web-based application based on Bayesian multilevel logistic regression (BMLR) for the identification of institutions collaborating successfully. | 7 | 0.50 | 2016 |
| Some further aspects of sampling: Comment on Williams and Bornmann. | 0 | 0.34 | 2016 |
| How well does a university perform in comparison with its peers? The use of odds, and odds ratios, for the comparison of institutional citation impact using the Leiden Rankings | 1 | 0.36 | 2015 |
| Testing for the fairness and predictive validity of research funding decisions: A multilevel multiple imputation for missing data approach using ex‐ante and ex‐post peer evaluation data from the Austrian science fund | 3 | 0.56 | 2015 |
| What is behind the curtain of the Leiden Ranking? | 4 | 0.43 | 2015 |
| Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis. | 0 | 0.34 | 2014 |
| On the origins and the historical roots of the Higgs boson research from a bibliometric perspective. | 7 | 0.64 | 2014 |
| What is the effect of country-specific characteristics on the research performance of scientific institutions? Using multi-level statistical models to rank and map universities and research-focused institutions worldwide. | 19 | 1.18 | 2014 |
| Conceptual funding of a new citation-rank approach in bibliometrics: P100. | 0 | 0.34 | 2013 |
| The use of percentiles and percentile rank classes in the analysis of bibliometric data: Opportunities and limits. | 67 | 2.18 | 2013 |
| Multilevel-statistical reformulation of citation-based university rankings: The Leiden ranking 2011/2012. | 26 | 1.48 | 2013 |
| Do Universities or Research Institutions With a Specific Subject Profile Have an Advantage or a Disadvantage in Institutional Rankings? A Latent Class Analysis With Data From the SCImago Ranking. | 5 | 0.59 | 2013 |
| The advantage of the use of samples in evaluative bibliometric studies | 9 | 0.67 | 2013 |
| The generalized propensity score methodology for estimating unbiased journal impact factors | 7 | 0.56 | 2012 |
| Skewed citation distributions and bias factors: Solutions to two core problems with the journal impact factor. | 11 | 1.00 | 2012 |
| Ranking and mapping of universities and research-focused institutions worldwide based on highly-cited papers: A visualisation of results from multi-level models. | 8 | 0.51 | 2012 |
| Normalizing the measurement of citation performance: Principles for comparing sets of documents | 2 | 0.36 | 2011 |
| Further steps towards an ideal method of measuring citation performance: The avoidance of citation (ratio) averages in field-normalization | 74 | 3.45 | 2011 |
| A multilevel meta-analysis of studies reporting correlations between the h index and 37 different h index variants | 78 | 2.59 | 2011 |
| Turning the tables on citation analysis one more time: Principles for comparing sets of documents | 96 | 4.37 | 2011 |
| The h index research output measurement: Two approaches to enhance its accuracy | 20 | 0.87 | 2010 |
| The influence of the applicants' gender on the modeling of a peer review process by using latent Markov models | 5 | 0.72 | 2009 |
| Do we need the h index and its variants in addition to standard bibliometric measures? | 15 | 0.88 | 2009 |
| How to detect indications of potential sources of bias in peer review: A generalized latent variable modeling approach exemplified by a gender study | 7 | 0.90 | 2008 |
| Latent Markov modeling applied to grant peer review | 5 | 1.08 | 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 | 156 | 5.96 | 2008 |
| Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis | 26 | 3.76 | 2007 |
