Pengukuran Kinerja Riset: Teori dan Implementasi

Abbasi, A., Chung, K. S. K., & Hossain, L. (2012). Egocentric analysis of co- authorship network structure, position and performance. Information Processing and Management, 48(4), 671–679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ipm.2011.09.001.

Abbasi, A., & Jaafari, A. (2013). Research impact and scholars’ geographical diversity. Journal of Informetrics, 7(3), 683–692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. joi.2013.04.004.

Abramo, G., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2011). Evaluating research: From informed peer review to bibliometrics. Scientometrics, 87(3), 499–514. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11192-011-0352-7.

Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Di Costa, F. (2009). Research collaboration and productivity: Is there correlation? Higher Education, 57(2), 155–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9139-z.

Aguillo, I. F., Granadino, B., Ortega, J. L., & Prieto, J. A. (2006). Scienti c research activity and communication measured with cybermetrics indicators. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 57(10), 1296–1302.

Alhaider, I., Mueen Ahmed, K. K., & Gupta, B. M. (2015). Pharmaceutical research in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: A scientometric analysis during 2001–2010. Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal, 23(3), 215–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsps.2013.07.008.

Almind, T. C., & Ingwersen, P. (1997). Informetric analyses on the world wide web: Methodological approaches to ‘webometrics.’ Journal of Documentation, 53(4), 404–426.

Alonso, S., Cabrerizo, F. J., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2009). h-Index: A review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for di erent scienti c elds. Journal of Informetrics, 3(4), 273–289. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2009.04.001.

Arundel, A. (1995). Innovation strategies of Europe’s largest industrial rms: Results of the PACE survey for information sources, public research, protection of innovations and government programmes. Final report. Luxembourg: DG XII of the European Commission.

A?stro?m, F. (2007). Changes in the LIS research front: Time-sliced cocitation analyses of LIS journal articles, 1990–2004. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 58(7), 947–957.

Bar-Ilan, J. (2004). e use of web search engines in information science research. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 38(1), 231–288.

Baraba?si, A., Jeong, H., Neda, Z., Ravasz, E., Schubert, A., & Vicsek, T. (2002). Evolution of the social network of scienti c collaboration. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 311(3), 590–614. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0378-4371(02)00736-7.

Barjak, F., & elwall, M. (2008). A statistical analysis of the web presences of European life sciences research teams. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 59(4), 628–643.

Bassecoulard, E., & Zitt, M. (2004) Patents and publications. Dalam H.F. Moed, W. Gla?nzel, & U. Schmoch (Ed.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (665–694) Dordrecht: Springer.

Batista, P. D., Campiteli, M. G., & Kinouchi, O. (2006). Is it possible to compare researchers with di erent scienti c interests? Scientometrics, 68(1), 179–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0090-4.

Batista, P. D., Campiteli, M. G., Kinouchi, O., & Martinez, A. S. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scienti c research valid across disciplines. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0090-4.

Beaver, D. de B., & Rosen, R. (1978). Studies in scienti c collaboration, 1: Professional origins of scienti c co-authorship. Scientometrics, 1, 65–84.

Beel, J., & Gipp, B. (2009). Google Scholar’s ranking algorithm: An introductory overview. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI’09), 1, 230–241.

Beel, J., & Gipp, B. (2010a). Academic search engine spam and Google Scholar’s resilience against it. e Journal of Electronic Publishing: JEP, 13(3), 1–24.

Beel, J., & Gipp, B. (2010b). On the robustness of Google Scholar against spam. Proceedings of the 21st ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hyper- media (297–298).

Beel, J., Gipp, B., & Wilde, E. (2009). Academic search engine optimization (ASEO) optimizing scholarly literature for Google Scholar & Co. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 41(2), 176–190.

Benn, O. (2010, 9 Maret). Is Google Scholar a worthy adversary?. Diakses dari www.nonpublication.com/benn.pdf.

Bergstrom, C. T. (2007). Eigenfactor: Measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals. College & Research Libraries News, 68, 314–316. https://doi.org/709FE567-5CC4-400C-B88A-321759EC5F33.

Bertin, G. Y., & Wyatt, S. (1988). Multinationals and industrial property: e control of the world’s technology. Paris: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.

Bertocchi, G., Gambardella, A., Jappelli, T., Nappi, C. A., & Peracchi, F. (2015). Bibliometric evaluation vs. informed peer review: Evidence from Italy. Research Policy, 44(2), 451–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. respol.2014.08.004.

Bjo?rneborn, L., & Ingwersen, P. (2004). Toward a basic framework for webometrics. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 55(14), 1216–1227.

Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). Ucinet for Windows: So ware for Social Network Analysis. Harvard Analytic Technologies, 2006 (January), SNA Analysis so ware. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439- 0310.2009.01613.x.

Borgman, C. L., & Furner, J. (2002). Scholarly communication and bibliometrics. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 36(1), 2–72.

Bornmann, L. (2013). How to analyze percentile citation impact data meaningfully in bibliometrics: e statistical analysis of distributions , percentile rank classes , and top-cited papers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(3), 587–595. https:// doi.org/10.1002/asi.

Bornmann, L., & Leydesdor , L. (2012). Which are the best performing regions in information science in terms of highly cited papers? Some improvements of our previous mapping approaches. Journal of Informetrics, 6(2), 336–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2011.11.002.

Bornmann, L., Leydesdor , L., Walch-Solimena, C., & Ettl, C. (2011). Mapping excellence in the geography of science: An approach based on Scopus data. Journal of Informetrics, 5(4), 537–546. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.joi.2011.05.005.

Bornmann, L., & Mutz, R. (2011). Further steps towards an ideal method of measuring citation performance: e avoidance of citation (ratio) averages in eld-normalization. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 228–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.10.009.

Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Daniel, H.-D. (2008). Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than theh index? A comparison of nine di erent variants of theh index using data from biomedicine. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(5), 830– 837. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20806.

Braun, T., Gla?nzel, & Grupp, H. (1995). e scientometric weight of 50 nations in 27 science areas, 1989–1993. 1: All elds combined, mathematics, engineering, chemistry and physics. Scientometrics, 33, 263–293.

Braun, T., Glanzel, W., & Schubert, A. (1985). Scientometric Indicators. Singapura: World Scienti c. https://doi.org/10.1142/0106.

Braun, T., Gla?nzel, W., & Schubert, A. (1988). World ash on basic research— e newest version of the facts and gures on publication output and relative citation impact of 100 countries 1981–1985. Scientometrics, 13, 181–188.

Breschi, S., & Lissoni, F. (2004). Knowledge Networks from Patent Data : Methodological Issues and Research Targets. Dalam H. F. Moed, W. Gla?nzel, & U. Schmoch (Ed.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (613–644). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Brusoni, S., & Geuna, A. (2003). An international comparison of sectoral knowledge bases: persistence and integration in the pharmaceutical industry. Research Policy, 32, 1897– 1912.

Burrell, Q. L. (2003). Predicting future citation behavior. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(5), 372– 378. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.10207.

Burrell, Q. L. (2007a). Hirsch’s h-index: A stochastic model. Journal of Informetrics, 1, 16–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2006.07.001.

Burrell, Q. L. (2007b). On the h-index, the size of the Hirsch core and Jin’s A-index. Journal of Informetrics, 1, 170–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. joi.2007.01.003.

Chen, K., & Guan, J. (2011). A bibliometric investigation of research performance in emerging nanobiopharmaceuticals. Journal of Informetrics, 5(2), 233–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.10.007.

Clarivate Analytics. (2017). Journal citation reports. Diakses dari https:// clarivate.com/products/journal-citation-reports/.

Clarivate Analytics. (2018). InCites indicators handbook. Diakses dari ipscience-help.thomsonreuters.com/inCites2Live/8980-TRS/version/ default/part/AttachmentData/data/InCites-Indicators-Handbook- June2018.pdf.

Coccia, M. (2001). A basic model for evaluating R&D performance: eory and application in Italy. R&D Management, 31(4), 453–464.

Coccia, M. (2008). Measuring scienti c performance of public research units for strategic change. Journal of Informetrics, 2(3), 183–194. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.joi.2008.04.001.

Cole, S., Cole, J., & Dietric, L. (1978). Measuring the cognitive state of scienti c disciplines. Dalam Y. Elkana, J. Lederberg, R. K. Merton, A. ackray, & H. Zuckerman (Ed.), Toward a metric of science: e advent of science indicators (209–252). New York: Wiley and Sons.

Costas, R., & Bordons, M. (2007). e h-index: Advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level. Journal of Informetrics, 1(3), 193–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2007.02.001.

Cunningham, S. J., & Dillon, S. M. (1997). Authorship patterns in information systems. Scientometrics, 39(1), 19–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF02457428.

Cybermetrics Lab. (2017). Ranking web of universities. Diakses dari www. webometrics.info.

Das, A. K. (2015). Research evaluation metrics. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scienti c and Cultural Organization.

De Solla Price, D. J. (1978). Toward a model for science indicators. Dalam H. Lederberg, J., Merton, R.K. ackray, & A., Zuckerman (Ed.), Toward a metric of science: e advent of science indicators. New York: John Wiley.

Debackere, K., Buyens, D., Vandenbossche, T. (1997). Strategic career development for R&D professionals: Lessons from eld research. Technovation, 17(2), 53–62.

Debackere, K., & Luwel, M. (2005). Patent Data for Monitoring S&T Portfolios. Dalam H. F. Moed, W. Gla?nzel, & U. Schmoch (Ed.) Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research (569–585). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/1- 4020-2755-9_27.

De Nooy, W., Mrvar, A., & Batagelj, V. (2011). Exploratory social network analysis with pajek. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ditlitabmas. (2013). Penilaian kinerja penelitian perguruan tinggi. Jakarta: Direktorat Penelitian dan Pengabdian Kepada Masyarakat, Direktur Jenderal Pendidikan Tinggi, Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.

Dragos, C. M., & Dragos, S. L. (2013). Bibliometric approach of factors a ecting scienti c productivity in environmental sciences and ecology. Science of the Total Environment, 449, 184–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. scitotenv.2013.01.057.

Dreiling, G. (2011). How to use Google Scholar for legal research. Diakses dari http://lawyertechreview.com.

Dutta, B. (2014). e journey from librametry to altmetrics: A look back. Makalah dipresentasikan pada Golden Jubilee Celebration of Department of Library and Information Science, Jadavpur University;, Jadavpur University, Kolkata, India. Kolkata: Jadavpur University. Retrieved from http://eprints.rclis.org/23665/.

Egghe, L. (2000). A heuristic study of the first-citation distribution. Scientometrics, 48(3), 345–359. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005688404778.

Egghe, L. (2006). eory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 131–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0144-7.

Egghe, L., Rousseau, R., & Van Hooydonk, G. (2000). Methods for accrediting publications to authors or countries: Consequences for evaluation studies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(2), 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097- 4571(2000)51:2<145::AID-ASI6>3.0.CO;2-9.

EigenFactor. (2007). About the Eigenfactor® Project. Diakses pada September 10, 2017, dari http://eigenfactor.org.

Elkana, Y., Lederberg, J., Merton, R.K., ackray, A., & Zuckerman, H. (1978). Toward a metric of science: e advent of science indicators. New York: John Wiley.

Ellison, N. B., & Boyd, D. M. (2007). Social network sites: De nition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230.

Escher, T. (2007). e geography of (online) social networks. Makalah dipresentasikan pada e Conference of Towards a Social Science of Web 2.0, University of York, Inggris.

Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A, & Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. e FASEB Journal: O cial Publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, 22(2), 338–42. https://doi.org/10.1096/ .07-9492LSF.

Fleischer, T., Decker, M., & Fiedeler, U. (2005). Assessing emerging techno- logies—Methodological challenges and the case of nanotechnologies. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 72 1112–1121. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.techfore.2004.10.005.

Foot, K., & Schneider, S. M. (2006). Web campaigning (acting with technology). Massachusetts: e MIT Press.

Foot, K., Schneider, S. M., Dougherty, M., Xenos, M., & Larsen, E. (2003). Analyzing linking practices: Candidate sites in the 2002 US electoral web sphere. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 8(4). https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2003.tb00220.x.

Franceschini, F., Maisano, D., & Mastrogiacomo, L. (2013). e e ect of database dirty data on h-index calculation. Scientometrics, 95, 1179– 1188.

Franceschini, F., & Maisano, D. A. (2010). Analysis of the Hirsch index’s operational properties. European Journal of Operational Research 203(2), 494–504.

Frenken, K., Hardeman, S., & Hoekman, J. (2009). Spatial scientometrics: Towards a cumulative research program. Journal of Informetrics, 3(3), 222–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2009.03.005

Fu, H.-Z., Wang, M.-H., & Ho, Y.-S. (2013). Mapping of drinking water research: A bibliometric analysis of research output during 1992-2011. Science of the Total Environment, 443, 757–765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. scitotenv.2012.11.061

Garfield, E. (1979). Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool? Scientometrics, 1(4), 359–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02019306

Giles, J. (2005). Science in the web age: Start your engines. Nature, 438(7068), 554–555.

Glanzel, W. (2003). Bibliometrics as a research eld: A course on theory and application of bibliometric indicators [Handout]. Magyar Tudoma?nyos Akade?mia, Hungaria.

Glanzel, W., & Schoep in, U. (1994). Discussion Paper Little Scientometrics, Big Scientometrics ... And Beyond? Scientometrics, 30, 375–384.

Gonzalez-Pereira, B., Guerrero-Bote, V., & Moya-Anegon, F. (2009). e SJR indicator: A new indicator of journals’ scienti c prestige. SCImago Research Group.

Guellec, D., & de la Potterie, B. V. P. (2004). Measuring the internationalisation of the generation of knowledge an approach based on patent data. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Harzing, A.-W., & Alakangas, S. (2016). Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics, 106(2), 787–804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015- 1798-9.

Harzing, A.-W., Alakangas, S., & Adams, D. (2014). hIa: an individual annual h-index to accommodate disciplinary and career length di erences. Scientometrics, 99(3), 811–821. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013- 1208-0.

Hassan-Montero, Y., Guerrero-Bote, V. P., & De-Moya-Anego?n, F. (2014). Graphical interface of the SCImago Journal and Country Rank: an interactive approach to accessing bibliometric information. El Profesional de La Informacion, 23(3), 272–278. https://doi.org/10.3145/ epi.2014.may.07.

Hertzel, D. H. (2003). Bibliometrics history. Dalam M. Drake (Ed.), Encyclopedia of library and information science (288–328). New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.

Hess, D. J. (1997). Science studies: An advanced introduction. New York, NYU Press.

Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual ’ s scienti c research output. PNAS, 102(46).

Hood, W. W., & Wilson, C. S. (2001). e literature of bibliometrics , and informetrics scientometrics. Scientometrics, 52(2), 291–314.

Hou, H., Kretschmer, H., Liu, Z., Ou, H. A. H., Retschmer, H. I. K., & Iu, Z. E. L. (2008). e structure of scienti c collaboration networks in Scientometrics. Scientometrics, 75(2), 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11192-007-1771-3.

Iglesias, J. E., & Pecharroman, C. (2006). Scaling the h-index for di erent scienti c ISI elds. Scientometrics, 73(3), 303–320.

Ingwersen, P. (1998). e calculation of web impact factors. Journal of Documentation, 54(2), 236–243.

Ivancheva, L. (2008). Scientometrics Today: A Methodological Overview. Collnet Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 2(2), 47–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/09737766.2008.10700853.

Jasco, P. (2009). Google Scholar’s ghost authors, lost authors, and other problems: Why the popular tool can’t be used to analyze the publishing performance and impact of researchers. Library Journal, 9(24), 2009.

Jati, H., Irmawati, D., & Indri Hapsari, Y. (2013). Metode Baru Pemeringkatan Webometrics Universitas Dengan Multicriteria Decision Analysis, Laporan Penelitian Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta.

Jin, B., Liang, L., Rousseau, R., & Egghe, L. (2007). e R- and AR-indices: Complementing the h-index. Chinese Science Bulletin, 52(6), 855–863. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11434-007-0145-9.

Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(96)00917-1.

Kessler, M. M. (1963). An experimental study of bibliographic coupling between technical papers. IEEE Transactions on Information eory, 9(1), 49–51.

Khabsa, M., & Giles, C. L. (2014). e number of scholarly documents on the public web. PloS One, 9(5), e93949.

Konur, O. (2012a). e evaluation of the global research on the education: A scientometric approach. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 1363–1367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.827.

Konur, O. (2012b). e scientometric evaluation of the research on the production of bioenergy from biomass. Biomass and Bioenergy, 47, 504–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.09.047.

Labbe?, C. (2010). Ike Antkare, one of the great stars in the scienti c rmament. ISSI Newsletter, 6(2), 48–52.

Lawrence, S., & Giles, C. L. (2000). Accessibility of information on the web. Intelligence, 11(1), 32–39.

Lee, L.-C., Lee, Y.-Y., & Liaw, Y.-C. (2012). Bibliometric analysis for development of research strategies in agricultural technology: the case of Taiwan. Scientometrics, 93(3), 813–830. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11192-012-0833-3.

Levin, R. C., Klevorick, A. K., Nelson, R. R., Winter, S. G., Gilbert, R., & Griliches, Z. (1987). Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1987(3), 783. https://doi.org/10.2307/2534454.

Leydesdor , L. (1998). eories of citation? Scientometrics, 43(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02458391.

Leydesdor , L., Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Opthof, T. (2011). Turning the tables on citation analysis one more time: Principles for comparing sets of documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(7), 1370–1381. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21534

Leydesdor , L., & Milojevic, S. (2015). Scientometrics 1. In International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Section 8.5: Science and Technology Studies.

Leydesdor , L., & Vaughan, L. (2006). Co-occurrence matrices and their applications in information science: Extending ACA to the web environment. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 57(12), 1616–1628.

Li, W., & Zhao, Y. (2015). Bibliometric analysis of global environmental assessment research in a 20-year period. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 50, 158–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. eiar.2014.09.012.

Li, X., elwall, M., Musgrove, P., & Wilkinson, D. (2003). e relationship between the WIFs or inlinks of Computer Science Departments in UK and their RAE ratings or research productivities in 2001. Scientometrics, 57(2), 239–255.

Liu, H. (2007). Social network pro les as taste performances. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 252–275.

Liu, X., Bollen, J., Nelson, M. L., & Van De Sompel, H. (2005). Co-authorship networks in the digital library research community. Information Processing and Management, 41(6), 1462–1480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ipm.2005.03.012.

Lotka, A. J. (1926). e Frequency distribution of scienti c productivity. Journal of e Washington Academy of Sciences, 16(12), 317–323.

Lukman, Ahmadi, S. S., Manalu, W., & Hidayat, D. S. (2017). Pedoman publikasi ilmiah. Jakarta: Kementerian Riset Teknologi dan Pendidikan Tinggi.

Lukman, Dimyati, M., Rianto, Y., Subroto, I. M. I., Sutikno, T., Hidayat, D. S., Nadhiroh, I. M., & Heryanto, A. (2018). Proposal of S-score to measure the performance of researchers, institutions, and journals in Indonesia. Science Editing, 5(2).

Lukman, Soewono, E., Istadi, Wiryawan, K. G., & Sutikno, T. (2017). Pedoman Tata Kelola Jurnal Menuju Bereputasi Internasional. Jakarta: Kementerian Riset Teknologi dan Pendidikan Tinggi.

Ma, N., Guan, J., & Zhao, Y. (2008). Bringing PageRank to the citation analysis. Information Processing & Management, 44(2), 800–810. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2007.06.006.

Mena-Chalco, J. P., Digiampietri, L. A., Lopes, F. M., & Cesar, R. M. (2014). Brazilian bibliometric coauthorship networks. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(7), 1424–1445. https://doi. org/10.1002/asi.23010.

Merton, B. R. K. (1988). e Matthew E ect in Science , II Cumulative Advantage and the Symbolism of Intellectual Property, 159(January 1968), 606–623.

Michels, C., & Schmoch, U. (2014) Impact of bibliometric studies on the publication behaviour of authors. Scientometrics, 98(1), 369–385.

Mingers, J., & Burrell, Q. L. (2006). Modeling citation behavior in Manage- ment Science journals. Information Processing & Management, 42(6), 1451–1464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2006.03.012.

Mingers, J., & Leydesdor , L. (2015). A review of theory and practice in scientometrics. European Journal of Operational Research, 246(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.04.002.

Moed, H. F., & van Leeuwen, T. (1995). Improving the accuracy of the Institute for Scienti c Information’s Journal Impact Factors. J. of the American Society for Information Science (JASIS), 46, 461–467.

Moed, H. F., Gla?nzel, W., & Schmoch, U. (2004). Handbook of quantitative science and technology research: e use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S &T systems. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2755-9_20.

Musgrove, P., Binns, R., Page-Kennedy, T., & elwall, M. (2003). A method for identifying clusters in sets of interlinking Web spaces. Scientometrics, 58(3), 657–672.

Nadhiroh, I. M., Aidi, M. N., & Sartono, B. (2013). Kajian scientometrics: analisis jaringan sosial pada publikasi internasional Indonesia Bidang kimia. STI Policy and Management Journal, 13(1), 68–84. https://doi. org/10.14203/STIPM.2015.40.

Nagpaul, G. (1999). Emerging trends in scientometrics. New Delhi: Allied Publishers Ltd.

Nalimov, V. V., & Mulchenko, Z. M. (1969). Measurement of science: Study of the Development of Science as an Information Process. Washington DC: Foreign Technology Division.

Narin, F. (1976). Evaluative bibliometrics: e use of publication and citation analysis in the evaluation of scienti c activity. Washington D.C: National Science Foundation.

Narin, F., & Breitzman, A. (1999). Method and apparatus for choosing a stock portfolio, based on patent indicators. US Patent 6,175,824. Washington D.C.: US Patent and Trademark O ce.

Nesta, L., & Patel, P. (2005). National patterns of technology accumulation: Use of patent statistics. Dalam H. F. Moed, W. Gla?nzel & U. Schmoch (Ed.) Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research (531–551). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi. org/10.1007/1-4020-2755-9_25.

Newman, M. E. J. (2004). Who is the best connected scientist?A Study of scienti c coauthorship networks. Complex Networks, 650, 337–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/b98716.

Nowinski, A. (2014). Current bibliography research information systems in Poland. Procedia Computer Science, 33, 174–178. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.procs.2014.06.029.

Opthof, T., & Leydesdor , L. (2011). A comment to the paper by Waltman et al. Scientometrics, 87, 467-481, 2011. Scientometrics, 88(3), 1011–1016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0424-8.

Page, L., Brin, S., Motwani, R., & Winograd, T. (1999). e PageRank Citation Ranking: Bringing Order to the Web. (Laporan Teknis).

Panda, I., Maharana, B., & Chhatar, D. C. (2013). e journal of information literacy: A bibliometric. International Journal of Scienti c and Research Publications, 3(3), 1–7.

Pattah, S. H. (2013). Pemanfaatan kajian bibliometrika sebagai metode evaluasi dan kajian dalam ilmu perpustakaan dan informasi. Jurnal Ilmu Perpustakaan & Informasi Khizanah Al-Hikmah, 1(1), 47–57.

Pislyakov, V. (2009). Comparing two “thermometers”: Impact factors of 20 leading economic journals according to Journal Citation Reports and Scopus. Scientometrics, 79(3), 541–550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192- 007-2016-1.

Porter, A. L., & Cunningham, S. W. (2004). Tech Mining. Hoboken, NJ. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471698466.

Porter, A. & Newman, N. (2004). Patent pro ling for competitive advantage. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics. Journal of Documentation, 25, 348–349.

Price, D. J. D. S. (1964). Networks of scienti c papers. Science 149(3683), 510–515.

Pryterch, R. (2005). Harrod’s librarians’ glossary and reference book. Hampshire: Ashgatc Publishing.

QS Quacquarelli Symonds. (2018). QS Word University Ranking. Diakses dari https://www.topuniversities.com/contact-us pada 25 Mei 2018.

Quint, B. (2008). Changes at Google Scholar: A conversation with Anurag Acharya. Journal of Library Administration, 47(1–2), 77–79.

Riset (2018). Dalam Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia Daring. Diakses dari https://kbbi.kemdikbud.go.id/entri/riset.

Roemer, R. C., & Borchardt, R. (2015). Meaningful metrics a 21st-Century librarian’s guide to bibliometrics, altmetrics, and research impact. Washington D.C.: e Association of College & Research Libraries, a division of the American Library Association.

Rousseau, R. (2006). New developments related to the Hirsch index. Science Technology Development (inpress).

Ruiz-Castillo, J., & Waltman, L. (2015). Field-normalized citation impact indicators using algorithmically constructed classi cation systems of science. Journal of Informetrics, 9(1), 102–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. joi.2014.11.010.

Saaty, R.W. (1987) e analytic hierarchy process: what it is and how it is used. Mathematical Modelling, 9, 161–76.

Schmoch, U. (2004). e technological output of scienti c institutions. Dalam H. F. Moed, W. Gla?nzel & U. Schmoch (Ed.), Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research (717–731). Netherland: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

SCImago. (2007). SJR — SCImago Journal & Country Rank. Diakses dari http://www.scimagojr.com pada 10 September 2017.

Scopus. (2017). Scopus content. Diakses dari https://www.elsevier.com/ solutions/scopus/content pada 10 September 2017.

Scott, J. (2000). Social network analysis a handbook, Second Edition. California: Sage PublicationsSage CA.

Serenko, A., & Dumay, J. (2015). Citation classics published in Knowledge Management journals. Part II: studying research trends and discovering the Google Scholar E ect. Journal of Knowledge Management, 19(6), 1335–1355.

Sichel, H. S. (1985). A bibliometric distribution which really works. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 36(5), 314–321. https:// doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630360506.

Small, H. (1973). Co-citation in the Scienti c Literature: A New Measure of the Relationship Between Publications. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24, 265–269.

Small, H., & Sweeney, E. (1985). Clustering the science citation index{ textregistered} using co-citations: I. A comparison of methods. Scientometrics, 7(3–6), 391–409.

Sorensen, A. A., Seary, A., & Riopelle, K. (2010). Alzheimer’s disease research: A COIN study using co-authorship network analytics. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(4), 6582–6586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. sbspro.2010.04.068.

Sun, J., Wang, M. H., & Ho, Y. S. (2012). A historical review and bibliometric analysis of research on estuary pollution. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 64(1), 13–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.10.034.

Tague-Sutcli e, J. (1992). An introduction to informetrics. Information Processing & Management, 28(1), 1–3.

elwall, M. (2001). Extracting macroscopic information from web links. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 52(13), 1157–1168.

elwall, M. (2008). Bibliometrics to webometrics. Journal of Information Science, 34(4), 605–621.

elwall, M. (2009). Introduction to webometrics: Quantitative web research for the social sciences. Synthesis Lectures on Information Concepts, Retrieval, and Services, 1(1), 1–116.

Tijssen, R. J. W. (2004). Measuring and evaluating science—technology connections and interactions. H. F. Moed, W. Gla?nzel & U. Schmoch (Ed.), Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research (695– 716). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Times Higher Education. (2018). e World University Ranking. Diakses dari https://www.timeshighereducation.com/about-us pada 25 Mei 2018.

Todeschini, R. (2011). e j-index: a new bibliometric index and multivariate comparisons between other common indices. Scientometrics, 87(3), 621–639. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0346-5.

Torgerson, W. S. (1952). Multidimensional scaling: I. eory and method. Psychometrika, 17(4), 401–419.

Unesco. (2015). Research evaluation metrics Paris: United Nations Educational, Scienti c and Cultural Organization.

Van Raan, A. F. J. (2012). Properties of journal impact in relation to bibliometric research group performance indicators. Scientometrics, 92(2), 457–469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0747-0.

Van Raan, A. F. J. (1988). Handbook of quantitative studies of science and technology. Amsterdam: North Holland. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978- 0-444-70537-2.50014-3.

Vanderelst, D., & Speybroeck, N. (2013). Scientometrics reveals funding priorities in medical research policy. Journal of Informetrics, 7(1), 240– 247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2012.10.004.

Verstak, A. (2014). Fresh look of scholar pro les. [Web log post]. Diakses dari https://scholar.googleblog.com/2014/08/fresh-look-of-scholar-pro les. html.

Vinkler, P. (1998). Comparative investigation of frequency and strength of motives toward referencing. The reference threshold model. Scientometrics, 43(1), 107–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02458400.

Vinkler, P. (2010). e evaluation of research by scientometric indicators. Cambridge: Chandos Publishing.

Vla?chy, J. (1979). Mobility in science. Bibliography of scienti c career migra- tion, eld mobility, international academic circulation and brain drain. Scientometrics, 1, 201–228.

Waltman, L., Calero-Medina, C., Kosten, J., Noyons, E. C. M., Tijssen, R. J. W., van Eck, N. J., ... Wouters, P. (2012). e Leiden ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(12), 2419–2432. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22708.

Waltman, L., & van Eck, N. J. (2013). Source normalized indicators of citation impact: An overview of di erent approaches and an empirical comparison. Scientometrics, 96, 699–716. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11192-012-0913-4.

Waltman, L., & van Eck, N. J. (2012). A new methodology for constructing a publication-level classi cation system of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(12), 2378–2392. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22748.

Waltman, L., & van Eck, N. J. (2013). A systematic empirical comparison of di erent approaches for normalizing citation impact indicators. (Laporan Teknis). Leiden: Leiden University.

Waltman, L., & van Eck, N. J. (2015). Field-normalized citation impact indicators and the choice of an appropriate counting method. (Laporan Teknis). Leiden: Leiden University.

Waltman, L., van Eck, N. J., & Noyons, E. C. M. (2010). A uni ed approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 629–635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.07.002.

Waltman, L., van Eck, N. J., van Leeuwen, T. N., Visser, M. S., & van Raan, A. F. J. (2011). Towards a new crown indicator: An empirical analysis. Scientometrics, 87(3), 467–481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011- 0354-5.

Wasserman, S., & Fraust, K. (1994). Social network analysis methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

WIPO. (2013) World intellectual property indicators 2013. Diakses dari http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/intproperty/941/wipo_ pub_941_2013.pdf.

Wouters, P. (1998). e signs of science. Scientometrics, 41(1–2), 225–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02457980.

Xu, Q., Zhang, W., Hu, L., Wang, J., & Jin, J. (2012). e development and research of bioinformatics in Neuroscience. AASRI Procedia, 1, 359–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aasri.2012.06.055.

Yadav, M., & Goyal, N. (2015). Comparison of open source crawlers-a review. International Journal of Scienti c & Engineering Research, 6(9), 1544– 1551.

Yuen, K. K., & Lau, H. C. (2008). So ware vendor selection using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process with ISO/IEC 9126. IAENG International Journal of Computer Science, 35(3).

Zipf, G. (1936). e Psycho-biology of language: An introduction to dynamic philology. London: Routledge.