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.
Intermarriage and Homogamy: Causes, Patterns, Trends
Countries citing papers authored by Matthijs Kalmijn
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Matthijs Kalmijn'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 Matthijs Kalmijn with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Matthijs Kalmijn more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by Matthijs Kalmijn
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Matthijs Kalmijn. 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 Matthijs Kalmijn. The network helps show where Matthijs Kalmijn may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Matthijs Kalmijn
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Matthijs Kalmijn.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Matthijs Kalmijn 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 Matthijs Kalmijn. Matthijs Kalmijn is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Ganzeboom, Harry B. G., et al.. (2011). Bourdieu in the network : The influence of high and popular culture on network formation in secondary school. KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie. 51(4). 424–446.12 indexed citations
11.
Dykstra, Pearl A., Aafke Komter, Matthijs Kalmijn, et al.. (2007). The Netherlands Kinship Panel Study: an introduction. Population Studies.3 indexed citations
Vermunt, Jeroen K. & Matthijs Kalmijn. (2006). Random effects models for personal networks : An application to marital status homogeneity. Methodology. 2(1). 34–41.3 indexed citations
14.
Dykstra, Pearl A., Matthijs Kalmijn, Trudie Knijn, et al.. (2004). Codebook of the Netherlands Kinship Panel Study, A multi-actor, multi-method panel study on solidarity in family relationships. Wave 2. Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS).159 indexed citations
15.
Kalmijn, Matthijs, et al.. (2004). Op bezoek bij familie en schoonfamilie: Een vergelijking van bezoekfrequenties gebaseerd op gegevens over gehuwde en samenwonende paren. Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS). 79. 66–88.1 indexed citations
16.
Graaf, P.M. de & Matthijs Kalmijn. (2003). Intelligentie, opleiding en echtscheiding in Nederland. Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS). 78(3). 264–272.1 indexed citations
17.
Kalmijn, Matthijs. (2001). Veranderingen in vriendschapsnetwerken tijdens de levensloop : Een toets van de paarsgewijze-afzonderingshypothese. Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS). 76. 221–239.2 indexed citations
18.
Giesen, Deirdre & Matthijs Kalmijn. (1997). Samen of apart bankieren? Een onderzoek naar het geldbeheer van gehuwd en ongehuwd samenwonende paren. Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS). 72(1). 21–39.3 indexed citations
19.
Graaf, P.M. de & Matthijs Kalmijn. (1995). Culturele en economische beroepsstatus. Een evaluatie van subjectieve en objectieve benaderingen. Mens en Maatschappij. 70(2). 152–165.13 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.