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.
Burst of the Filter Bubble?
2017249 citationsMario Haim, Andreas Graefe et al.profile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
Countries citing papers authored by Andreas Graefe
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Andreas Graefe'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 Andreas Graefe with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Andreas Graefe more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Andreas Graefe. 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 Andreas Graefe. The network helps show where Andreas Graefe may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Andreas Graefe
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Andreas Graefe.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Andreas Graefe 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 Andreas Graefe. Andreas Graefe is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Graefe, Andreas. (2017). Prediction Market Performance in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. RePEc: Research Papers in Economics. 38–42.8 indexed citations
7.
Graefe, Andreas, et al.. (2017). Assessing the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Popular Vote Forecasts. MPRA Paper.3 indexed citations
Graefe, Andreas, et al.. (2014). Accuracy of Combined Forecasts for the 2012 Presidential Elections: The Pollyvote. SSRN Electronic Journal.3 indexed citations
Armstrong, J. Scott & Andreas Graefe. (2010). Predicting Elections from the Most Important Issue: A Test of the Take-the-Best Heuristic. Scholarly Commons (University of Pennsylvania).40 indexed citations
13.
Graefe, Andreas. (2010). Prediction Markets for Forecasting Drug Development. RePEc: Research Papers in Economics. 8–12.3 indexed citations
14.
Graefe, Andreas & J. Scott Armstrong. (2010). Comparing Face-to-Face Meetings, Nominal Groups, Delphi and Prediction Markets on an Estimation Task. Scholarly Commons (University of Pennsylvania).5 indexed citations
15.
Graefe, Andreas, et al.. (2010). Combining forecasts: An application to U.S. Presidential Elections.2 indexed citations
Graefe, Andreas, et al.. (2009). Combining forecasts for U.S. presidential elections: The PollyVote. SSRN Electronic Journal.2 indexed citations
18.
Graefe, Andreas, et al.. (2009). Combined Forecasts of the 2008 Election: The Pollyvote. Scholarly Commons (University of Pennsylvania). 50–51.1 indexed citations
19.
Graefe, Andreas & Christof Weinhardt. (2008). Long-Term Forecasting with Prediction Markets - A Field Experiment on Applicability and Expert Confidence. SSRN Electronic Journal.
20.
Green, Kesten C., J. Scott Armstrong, & Andreas Graefe. (2007). Methods to Elicit Forecasts from Groups: Delphi and Prediction Markets Compared. Scholarly Commons (University of Pennsylvania).111 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.