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.
Factors influencing the choice of shared bicycles and shared electric bikes in Beijing
Countries citing papers authored by Andrew Campbell
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Andrew Campbell'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 Andrew Campbell with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Andrew Campbell more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Andrew Campbell. 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 Andrew Campbell. The network helps show where Andrew Campbell may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Andrew Campbell
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Andrew Campbell.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Andrew Campbell 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 Andrew Campbell. Andrew Campbell is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Campbell, Andrew. (2017). Focus on the Philippines. 4.
5.
Kunisch, Sven, Günter Müller‐Stewens, & Andrew Campbell. (2014). Why Corporate Functions Stumble. Harvard business review. 92(12). 21.23 indexed citations
6.
Campbell, Andrew, Jay Whitehead, Marcus Alexander, & Michael Goold. (2014). Strategy for the corporate level: where to invest, what to cut back and how to grow organisations with multiple divisions (2nd revised edition). London Business School Research Online (London Business School).3 indexed citations
7.
Campbell, Andrew, et al.. (2013). Protecting Bank Depositors after Cyprus. Nottingham Trent University's Institutional Repository (Nottingham Trent Repository). 23. 94.1 indexed citations
Campbell, Andrew. (2006). Iran and Deception Modalities: The Reach of 'Taqiyya', 'Kitman', 'Khod'eh' and 'Taarof'. 25.4 indexed citations
12.
Campbell, Andrew. (2006). The Dance Integral. 29–38.2 indexed citations
13.
Campbell, Andrew. (2005). 'Taqiyya': How Islamic Extremists Deceive the West. 11.5 indexed citations
14.
Campbell, Andrew, et al.. (2003). The Future of Corporate Venturing. MIT Sloan management review. 45(1). 30–37.44 indexed citations
15.
Campbell, Andrew. (2003). John Howard - Leadership and Character; Peter Costello, 'the Hollow Man'. 12.2 indexed citations
16.
Faulkner, David & Andrew Campbell. (2003). A strategy overview and competitive strategy. Oxford University Press eBooks.2 indexed citations
17.
Campbell, Andrew, et al.. (1997). Breakup! : how companies use spin-offs to gain focus and grow strong.4 indexed citations
18.
Campbell, Andrew, et al.. (1992). A sense of mission : defining direction for the large corporation. Addison-Wesley eBooks.26 indexed citations
19.
Campbell, Andrew, et al.. (1991). Creating a sense of mission. Long Range Planning. 24(4). 10–20.230 indexed citations
20.
Goold, Michael & Andrew Campbell. (1989). Strategies and styles : the role of the centre in managing diversified corporations.153 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.