Campbell Penfold

428 total citations
9 papers, 273 citations indexed

About

Campbell Penfold is a scholar working on Oncology, Surgery and Pathology and Forensic Medicine. According to data from OpenAlex, Campbell Penfold has authored 9 papers receiving a total of 273 indexed citations (citations by other indexed papers that have themselves been cited), including 8 papers in Oncology, 6 papers in Surgery and 3 papers in Pathology and Forensic Medicine. Recurrent topics in Campbell Penfold's work include Colorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments (6 papers), Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection (5 papers) and Colorectal and Anal Carcinomas (4 papers). Campbell Penfold is often cited by papers focused on Colorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments (6 papers), Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection (5 papers) and Colorectal and Anal Carcinomas (4 papers). Campbell Penfold collaborates with scholars based in Australia and United States. Campbell Penfold's co-authors include K. Chip Farmer, Mark Killingback, Neil Hyman, Ann C. Lowry, Gabriel A. Kune, Lyndsey F. Watson, Clifford L. Simmang, Paul Savoca, Susan Kune and P B Boulos and has published in prestigious journals such as Diseases of the Colon & Rectum, Nutrition and Cancer and Colorectal Disease.

In The Last Decade

Campbell Penfold

9 papers receiving 267 citations

Peers — A (Enhanced Table)

Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late) cites · hero ref

Name	h						Papers	Cites
Campbell Penfold Australia	8	170	156	67	47	36	9	273
Ahud Sternberg Israel	9	139 0.8×	167 1.1×	22 0.3×	71 1.5×	22 0.6×	23	310
William H. Sanders United States	6	196 1.2×	128 0.8×	50 0.7×	246 5.2×	11 0.3×	10	413
Valerio Di Paola Italy	10	35 0.2×	80 0.5×	34 0.5×	40 0.9×	24 0.7×	22	334
D Hasiakos Greece	10	36 0.2×	119 0.8×	18 0.3×	33 0.7×	58 1.6×	32	320
P. Walz Germany	9	26 0.2×	209 1.3×	65 1.0×	86 1.8×	13 0.4×	14	290
Alastair Thomson United Kingdom	9	59 0.3×	142 0.9×	74 1.1×	98 2.1×	10 0.3×	31	272
Berman Ml United States	5	107 0.6×	91 0.6×	9 0.1×	32 0.7×	21 0.6×	6	318
Yosuke Hirasawa Japan	12	107 0.6×	144 0.9×	72 1.1×	160 3.4×	13 0.4×	30	357
Yu-Tang Chang Taiwan	12	93 0.5×	242 1.6×	9 0.1×	53 1.1×	14 0.4×	26	332
John Beynon United Kingdom	10	148 0.9×	106 0.7×	20 0.3×	44 0.9×	29 0.8×	21	263

Countries citing papers authored by Campbell Penfold

Since Specialization

Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of Campbell Penfold'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 Campbell Penfold with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Campbell Penfold more than expected).

Fields of papers citing papers by Campbell Penfold

Since Specialization

Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers produced by Campbell Penfold. 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 Campbell Penfold. The network helps show where Campbell Penfold may publish in the future.

Co-authorship network of co-authors of Campbell Penfold

This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Campbell Penfold. A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Campbell Penfold 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 Campbell Penfold. Campbell Penfold is excluded from the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.

All Works

Sort: Min cites: Since: Top N: Style:

9 of 9 papers shown

1.

Farmer, K. Chip, Campbell Penfold, Jeremy Millar, et al.. (2002). Rectal cancer in Victoria in 1994: Patterns of reported management. ANZ Journal of Surgery. 72(4). 265–270. 10 indexed citations

2.

Lowry, Ann C., Clifford L. Simmang, P B Boulos, et al.. (2001). Consensus statement of definitions for anorectal physiology and rectal cancer^*. Colorectal Disease. 3(4). 272–275. 38 indexed citations

3.

Lowry, Ann C., Clifford L. Simmang, P B Boulos, et al.. (2001). Consensus statement of definitions for anorectal physiology and rectal cancer. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum. 44(7). 915–919. 70 indexed citations

4.

Lowry, Ann C., Clifford L. Simmang, P B Boulos, et al.. (2001). Consensus statement of definitions for anorectal physiology and rectal cancer. ANZ Journal of Surgery. 71(10). 603–605. 30 indexed citations

5.

Perrin, Lewis, Campbell Penfold, & A. R. McLeish. (1997). A PROSPECTIVE RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL COMPARING SUPRAPUBIC WITH URETHRAL CATHETERIZATION IN RECTAL SURGERY. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery. 67(8). 554–556. 27 indexed citations

6.

Wirth, A., et al.. (1992). Recent advances in the treatment of colorectal cancer*. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Medicine. 22(1). 61–68. 5 indexed citations

7.

Kune, Gabriel A., et al.. (1991). Colorectal polyps, diet, alcohol, and family history of colorectal cancer: A case‐control study. Nutrition and Cancer. 16(1). 25–30. 68 indexed citations

8.

Tjandra, Joe J., A. M. Cuthbertson, & Campbell Penfold. (1990). SESSILE ADENOMAS OF THE RECTUM: A PERSONAL SERIES 1974‐1984. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery. 60(11). 883–886. 7 indexed citations

9.

Sullivan, et al.. (1989). Phase I clinical trial of drug-monoclonal antibody conjugates in patients with advanced colorectal carcinoma: a preliminary report.. PubMed. 106(3). 533–45. 18 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.

Explore authors with similar magnitude of impact