Hit papers significantly outperform the citation benchmark for their cohort. A paper qualifies
if it has ≥500 total citations, achieves ≥1.5× the top-1% citation threshold for papers in the
same subfield and year (this is the minimum needed to enter the top 1%, not the average
within it), or reaches the top citation threshold in at least one of its specific research
topics.
A Systematic Survey of Program Comprehension through Dynamic Analysis
2009282 citationsArie van Deursen, Leon Moonen et al.profile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
This map shows the geographic impact of Leon Moonen'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 Leon Moonen with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Leon Moonen more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Leon Moonen. 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 Leon Moonen. The network helps show where Leon Moonen may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Leon Moonen
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Leon Moonen.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Leon Moonen based on the total number of
citations received by their joint publications. Widths of edges
represent the number of papers authors have co-authored together.
Node borders
signify the number of papers an author published with Leon Moonen. Leon Moonen is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Roy, Chanchal K., Andrew Begel, & Leon Moonen. (2014). Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Program Comprehension. International Conference on Software Engineering.2 indexed citations
Deursen, Arie van, Craig C. Hofmeister, Rainer Koschke, Leon Moonen, & Claudio de la Riva. (2004). Symphony: View-driven software architecture reconstruction. 1–19.1 indexed citations
11.
Marín, Ana María Pérez, Arie van Deursen, & Leon Moonen. (2004). Identifying aspects using fan-in analysis. Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica (CWI), the national research institute for mathematics and computer science in the Netherlands. 1–21.2 indexed citations
Deursen, Arie van & Leon Moonen. (2002). The Video Store Revisited - Thoughts on Refactoring and Testing.42 indexed citations
14.
Moonen, Leon. (2001). Generating robust parsers using Island grammars. Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS). 1–15.25 indexed citations
15.
Deursen, Arie van, et al.. (2001). Refactoring test code. Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica (CWI), the national research institute for mathematics and computer science in the Netherlands. 1–6.160 indexed citations
16.
Deursen, Arie van, Jan Heering, M. de Jonge, et al.. (2001). The Asf+ Sdf Meta-Environment: A Component-Based Language Development. Lecture notes in computer science. 2027(2001). 365.15 indexed citations
17.
Deursen, Arie van & Leon Moonen. (2000). Exploring legacy systems using types. 1–10.1 indexed citations
18.
Kuipers, T. & Leon Moonen. (2000). Types and concept analysis for legacy systems. Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica (CWI), the national research institute for mathematics and computer science in the Netherlands. 1–15.3 indexed citations
19.
Moonen, Leon. (1997). A generic architecture for data flow analysis to support reverse engineering. UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam). 10–10.13 indexed citations
20.
Moonen, Leon. (1996). Data Flow Analysis for Reverse Engineering. Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS).5 indexed citations
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.