| [1] | Horlings E, Gurney T, Somers A, Van den Besselaar P (2012) The societal footprint of big science. A literature review. Den Haag: Rathenau Instituut. Available:http://www.rathenau.nl/uploads/tx_tferat？henau/Working_paper_Economic_and_social_？footprintof_big_science.pdf. Accessed February 21 2012.
|
| [2] | Dutton WH, Jeffreys PW (2010) World Wide Research; reshaping the sciences and humanities. London: MIT Press. 424 p.
|
| [3] | http://www.nsf.gov/dir/index.jsp?org=OCI.
|
| [4] | http://www.escience.cam.ac.uk/.
|
| [5] | http://www.esciencecenter.nl/.
|
| [6] | Maasen van den Brink M, De Haas M, Van den Heuvel J, Spaapen J, Elsen M, et al.. (2010) Evaluating the societal benefits of academic research, a guide (ERiC). The Hague: Rathenau Instituut. 24 p. Available: http://www.rathenau.nl/uploads/tx_tferat？henau/ERiC_guide.pdf. Accessed February 21 2012.
|
| [7] | Martin B, Tang P, Morgan M, Glanzel W, Hornbostel S, et al.. (2010) Towards a bibliometric database for the social sciences and humanities. A report for DFG, ESRC, AHRC, NWO, ANR and ESF. University of Sussex, 2010. Available: www.dfg.de/…/esf_report_final_100309.pdf. Accessed February 21 2012.
|
| [8] | Krell FT (2000) Impact factors aren’t relevant to taxonomy. Nature, 405 6786: 507–508 doi:10.1038/35014664.
|
| [9] | Krell FT (2002) Why impact factors don’t work for taxonomy. Nature, 415 6875: 957 doi:10.1038/415957a.
|
| [10] | Moed HF, Visser MS (2007) Developing bibliometric indicators of research performance in computer science: an exploratory study. CWTS Leiden 2007. Available: www.cwts.nl/pdf/NWO_Inf_Final_Report_V_2？10207.pdf. Accessed February 21 2012.
|
| [11] | Spaapen J, Dijstelbloem H, Wamelink F (2007) Evaluating research in context; a method for comprehensive assessment. The Hague: COS, 2007 (second edition). Available: www.nwo.nl/files.nsf/…/eric_book_internet.pdf. Accessed February 21 2012.
|
| [12] | SEP, Standard evaluation Protocol 2009–2015 for research assessment in the Netherlands. Amsterdam & Den Haag: KNAW, NWO, VSNU 2010. Available: http://www.knaw.nl/Content/Internet_KNAW？/publicaties/pdf/20091052.pdf. Accessed February 21 2012.
|
| [13] | De Jong SP, Van Arensbergen P, Daemen F, Van der Meulen B, Van den Besselaar (2011) P (2011) Evaluating of research in context - an approach and two cases. In Research Evaluation 20 1: 61–72 doi:10.3152/095820211X12941371876346.
|
| [14] | Nightingale P, Scott A (2007) Peer review and the relevance gap: ten suggestions for policy makers. Science and Public Policy 34 8: 543–553 http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/030234207X2543？96.
|
| [15] | Van den Besselaar P, Heimeriks G (2012) New media and communication networks in knowledge production. Cybermetrics, 16. In press.
|
| [16] | eResearch2020 (2010) The role of e-infrastructures in the creation of global virtual research communities. Available: http://www.eresearch2020.eu/eResearch202？0%20Final%20Report.pdf. Accessed: Accessed February 21 2012.
|
| [17] | Shapin S (1989) The Invisible technician. American Scientist 77: 554–563.
|
| [18] | Thelwall M (2004) Link analysis. An information science approach. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
|
| [19] | Kousha K, Thelwall M, Rezaie S (2010) Using the Web for research evaluation. Journal of Informetrics 4: 124–135 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2009.10.？003.
|
| [20] | Scriven M (1991) Evaluation thesaurus, 4th ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. 391 p.
|
| [21] | Huurnink B, Hollink L, Van den Heuvel W, De Rijke M (2010) Search behavior of media professionals at an audiovisual archive: A transaction log analysis. Journal of the American society for information science and technology 61 6: 1180–1197 doi:10.1002/asi.21327.
|
| [22] | Islamaj Dogan R, Murray GC, Névéol A, Lu Z (2009) Understanding PubMed user search behavior through log analysis. Database bap018. doi:10.1093/database/bap018.
|
| [23] | Fang W (2007) Using Google Analytics for improving library website content and design: a case study. Library Philosophy and Practice, special issue on libraries and Google. Available: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewco？ntent.cgi?article=1121&context=libphilpr？ac. Accessed February 21 2012.
|
| [24] | Priem J, Costello lK (2010) How and why scholars cite on Twitter. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 47 1: 1–4 doi:10.1002/meet.14504701201.
|
| [25] | JISC Toolkit for the impact of digitized scholarly resources: http://microsites.oii.ox.ac.uk/tidsr/abo？ut-original-project/.
|
| [26] | http://www.google.com/intl/nl/analytics/.
|
| [27] | Smith VS (2009) Data publication: towards a database of everything. BMC Research Notes 2: 113 doi:10.1186/1756-0500-1182-1113.
|
| [28] | Smith VS, Duin D, Self D, Brake I, Roberts D (2010) Motivating online publication of scholarly research through social networking tools. Conference Proceedings paper delivered at COOP2010, the 9th International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems on 18 May, 2010 as part of a workshop titled Incentives and motivation for web-based collaboration, p. 329–340 Available: http://www.iisi.de/fileadmin/IISI/upload？/IRSI/IRSIV7I1.pdf. Accessed February 21 2012.
|
| [29] | Jacobs R, Kafry D, Zedeck S (1980) Expectations of behaviourally anchored rating scales. Personnel Psychology 33: 595–640 doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1980.tb00486.x.
|
| [30] | Van Raan AFJ (2004) Measuring science. In: Moed HF, Gl？nzel W, Schmoch U, editors. Handbook of quantitative science and technology research. The Use of Publication and Patent Statistics in Studies of S&T Systems. New York: Springer-Verlag. 19–50.
|
