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.
Eliciting security requirements with misuse cases
2004458 citationsGuttorm Sindre, Andreas L. Opdahlprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
Countries citing papers authored by Andreas L. Opdahl
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Andreas L. Opdahl'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 L. Opdahl with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Andreas L. Opdahl more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by Andreas L. Opdahl
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Andreas L. Opdahl. 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 L. Opdahl. The network helps show where Andreas L. Opdahl may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Andreas L. Opdahl
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Andreas L. Opdahl.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Andreas L. Opdahl 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 L. Opdahl. Andreas L. Opdahl is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Opdahl, Andreas L., et al.. (2021). Developing a Software Reference Architecture for Journalistic Knowledge Platforms. CEUR Workshop Proceedings.2 indexed citations
5.
Opdahl, Andreas L., et al.. (2020). Challenges and Opportunities for Journalistic Knowledge Platforms.7 indexed citations
6.
Al-Moslmi, Tareq, et al.. (2020). Data Privacy in Journalistic Knowledge Platforms..2 indexed citations
7.
Nyre, Lars, et al.. (2019). Towards a Big Data Platform for News Angles. CEUR Workshop Proceedings.6 indexed citations
Bjarnason, Elizabeth, Markus Borg, Marian Daun, et al.. (2016). Joint Proceedings of the REFSQ 2016 Co-Located Events : Joint Proceedings of REFSQ-2016 Workshops, Doctoral Symposium, Research Method Track, and Poster Track co-located with the 22nd International Conference on Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality (REFSQ 2016). publication.editionName.1 indexed citations
10.
Forbrig, Peter, Mārīte Kirikova, Cristina Palomares, et al.. (2016). Joint Proceedings of the REFSQ 2016 Co-Located Events. Research Explorer (The University of Manchester).1 indexed citations
Iden, Jon, Andreas L. Opdahl, Tom Roar Eikebrokk, & Dag H. Olsen. (2007). What Makes Process Modelling Effective - Modelling or Project Factors?. 72(1). 78–92.3 indexed citations
18.
Iden, Jon, Tom Roar Eikebrokk, Dag H. Olsen, & Andreas L. Opdahl. (2006). Process change projects: a study of Norwegian practice. Journal of the Association for Information Systems. 189(9). 1671–1682.4 indexed citations
19.
Opdahl, Andreas L.. (2006). Response to Wyssusek's "On Ontological Foundations of Conceptual Modelling". Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems. 18(1). 6.2 indexed citations
20.
Sindre, Guttorm, et al.. (2002). Generalization/specialization as a structuring mechanism for misuse cases. 3.25 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.