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.
This map shows the geographic impact of Bruce E. Cain'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 Bruce E. Cain with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Bruce E. Cain more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Bruce E. Cain. 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 Bruce E. Cain. The network helps show where Bruce E. Cain may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Bruce E. Cain
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Bruce E. Cain.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Bruce E. Cain 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 Bruce E. Cain. Bruce E. Cain is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Cain, Bruce E., et al.. (2019). The Uncertain Future of Felon Disenfranchisement. Missouri law review. 84(4). 4.1 indexed citations
3.
Cain, Bruce E., et al.. (2018). A Reasonable Bias Approach to Gerrymandering: Using Automated Plan Generation to Evaluate Redistricting Proposals. William and Mary law review. 59(5). 1521.9 indexed citations
Cain, Bruce E., et al.. (2013). Community of Interest Methodology and Public Testimony. UC Irvine law review. 3(3). 609.4 indexed citations
7.
Cain, Bruce E., Todd Donovan, & Caroline J. Tolbert. (2011). Democracy in the States: Experiments in Election Reform. Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University).25 indexed citations
Cain, Bruce E. & Roger G. Noll. (2009). Malleable Constitutions: Reflections on State Constitutional Reform. Texas law review. 87(7). 1517.5 indexed citations
Apollonio, Dorie E., Bruce E. Cain, & Lee Drutman. (2008). Access and Lobbying: Looking Beyond the Corruption Paradigm. Hastings constitutional law quarterly. 36(1). 13–50.9 indexed citations
13.
Cain, Bruce E., et al.. (2007). The political question doctrine and the Supreme Court of the United States. Lexington Books.4 indexed citations
Mann, Thomas E. & Bruce E. Cain. (2005). Party Lines: Competition, Partisanship, and Congressional Redistricting. Brookings Institution Press eBooks.26 indexed citations
16.
Dalton, Russell J., Susan E. Scarrow, & Bruce E. Cain. (2003). Democracy Transformed?: Expanding Political Opportunities in Advanced Industrial Democracies. eScholarship (California Digital Library).165 indexed citations
Cain, Bruce E., et al.. (1999). Equity and Efficacy in the Enforcement of Campaign Finance Laws. Texas law review. 77(7). 1891.5 indexed citations
19.
Cain, Bruce E.. (1999). Election Law as a Field: A Political Scientist's Perspective. Loyola of Los Angeles law review. 32(4). 1105.5 indexed citations
20.
Kiewiet, D. Roderick & Bruce E. Cain. (1984). Ethnicity and Electoral Choice: Mexican-American Voting Behavior in California 30th Congressional District. CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology).16 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.