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.
Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality
20051.4k citationsAnn BowlingJournal of Public Healthprofile →
This map shows the geographic impact of Ann Bowling'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 Ann Bowling with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Ann Bowling more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Ann Bowling. 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 Ann Bowling. The network helps show where Ann Bowling may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Ann Bowling
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Ann Bowling.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Ann Bowling 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 Ann Bowling. Ann Bowling is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Manthorpe, Jill & Ann Bowling. (2016). Quality of life measures for carers for people with dementia: measurement issues, gaps in research, and promising paths. ePrints Soton (University of Southampton).11 indexed citations
4.
Bowling, Ann. (2014). Quality of life in older age. ePrints Soton (University of Southampton).2 indexed citations
Bowling, Ann. (2005). Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. Journal of Public Health. 27(3). 281–291.1378 indexed citations breakdown →
11.
Bowling, Ann. (2004). Measuring health: a review of quality of life measurement scales. Third edition. ePrints Soton (University of Southampton).9 indexed citations
12.
Bowling, Ann. (2002). Research methods in health: investigating health and health services. 2nd edition. ePrints Soton (University of Southampton).42 indexed citations
13.
Bowling, Ann. (2001). Measuring disease. Second edition. ePrints Soton (University of Southampton).3 indexed citations
14.
Bowling, Ann & Judith Redfern. (2000). The process of outpatient referral and care: the experiences and views of patients, their general practitioners, and specialists.. PubMed. 50(451). 116–20.43 indexed citations
15.
Bowling, Ann. (1997). Book review. AIDS in the UK: the making of policy, 1981-1994, by Virginia Berridge. ePrints Soton (University of Southampton).
16.
Bond, Matthew, et al.. (1996). Evaluation of specialists' outreach clinics in primary care in England. ePrints Soton (University of Southampton).1 indexed citations
17.
Bowling, Ann. (1995). 'Quality of life' in social science and medicine. Social Science & Medicine. 41(10).24 indexed citations
18.
Bowling, Ann. (1989). Who Dies after Widowhood? A Discriminant Analysis.. 19(2).2 indexed citations
19.
Bowling, Ann & B Stilwell. (1988). The Nurse in family practice : practice nurses and nurse practitioners in primary health care.11 indexed citations
20.
Bowling, Ann. (1981). Delegation to nurses in general practice.. PubMed. 31(229). 485–90.10 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.