Sven E. Hug

24 papers receiving 573 citations

Peers

Sven E. Hug
Comparison fields: 5 of 96
  • Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty 390
  • Information Systems and Management 76
  • Information Systems 115
  • History and Philosophy of Science 22
  • General Decision Sciences 8
Replace A. J. Nederhof with:
A. J. Nederhof Netherlands
Ed J. Rinia Netherlands
Urs Schoepflin Germany
Clara Calero‐Medina Netherlands
Ben F. Johnson United States
Janne Pölönen Belgium
Chao Min China
Simon Kerridge United Kingdom
Yaşar Tonta Türkiye
Alberto Baccini Italy
Sven E. Hug relative to A. J. Nederhof Netherlands A. J. Nederhof's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×10×13.5×
A. J. Nederhof · 1×
Citations per year

Countries citing papers authored by Sven E. Hug

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of Sven E. Hug's research. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by Sven E. Hug with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Sven E. Hug more than expected).

Fields of papers citing papers by Sven E. Hug

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers produced by Sven E. Hug. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers produced by Sven E. Hug. The network helps show where Sven E. Hug may publish in the future.

Co-authors

The 9 scholars most cited alongside Sven E. Hug, linked wherever they have co-authored with each other. Click a name or a connecting line to browse the papers they share.

Border = papers with Sven E. Hug Line = papers co-authored together Sven E. Hug links everyone, so they are left out of the graph.

All Works

20 of 20 papers shown

Showing the 20 most-cited of 24 papers — load more, or switch the sort, to bring in the rest.

#Work
1 2011213
2 201767
3 201761
4 201346
5 201643
6 201233
7 202025
8 201724
9
A Framework to Explore and Develop Criteria for Assessing Research Quality in the Humanities
201217
10 202216
11 201214
12 202112
13 201411
14 20248
15 20134
16
Microsoft Academic is on the verge of becoming a bibliometric superpower
20173
17 20122
18 20202
19 20192
20 20201

About Sven E. Hug

Sven E. Hug is a scholar working on Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty, Sociology and Political Science, Political Science and International Relations, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health and Education, having authored 24 papers that have together received 608 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include scientometrics and bibliometrics research (12 papers), Health and Medical Research Impacts (3 papers), Political Science Research and Education (2 papers), Advanced Text Analysis Techniques (2 papers), Delphi Technique in Research (2 papers), Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics (2 papers), Evaluation and Performance Assessment (2 papers) and Sarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment (1 paper). The work is most often cited by research in Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty (390 citations), Information Systems and Management (76 citations), Information Systems (115 citations), History and Philosophy of Science (22 citations) and General Decision Sciences (8 citations). Sven E. Hug has collaborated with scholars based in Switzerland, Germany and France. Frequent co-authors include Hans‐Dieter Daniel, Michael Ochsner, Martin P. Brändle, Lutz Bornmann, Rüdiger Mutz, Lai Ma, Tobias Wolbring, Stefan de Jong and Alexis Dewaele. Their work appears in journals such as Scientometrics, Research Evaluation, Palgrave Communications, El Profesional de la Informacion and Journal of Informetrics.

Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.

Explore authors with similar magnitude of impact