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.
A Comprehensive Conceptualization of Post-Adoptive Behaviors Associated with Information Technology Enabled Work Systems1
2005759 citationsCarter et al.MIS Quarterlyprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
This map shows the geographic impact of Carter'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 Carter with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Carter more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Carter. 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 Carter. The network helps show where Carter may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Carter
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Carter.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Carter 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 Carter. Carter is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
All Works
20 of 20 papers shown
1.
Carter, et al.. (2016). Geomechanics of subsidence above single and multi-seam coal mining. 304–313.14 indexed citations
2.
Carter, et al.. (2016). Class as Caste: The Thirteenth Amendment’s Applicability to Class-Based Subordination. Seattle University law review. 39(3). 813.1 indexed citations
Carter, et al.. (2012). The Paradox of Political Power: Post-Racialism, Equal Protection, and Democracy. Emory law journal. 61(5). 1123.1 indexed citations
7.
Bergner, Erin M., et al.. (2008). The period of untreated psychosis before treatment initiation : A qualitative study of family members'perspectives.. Comprehensive Psychiatry.3 indexed citations
8.
Carter, et al.. (2008). Rethinking Subsidiarity in International Human Rights Adjudication. 30. 319.1 indexed citations
9.
Carter, Robert, Yong Yan, & Yong. (2007). On-line non-intrusive particle size measurement of pulverised fuel through digital imaging. 28(11). 1942–1946.4 indexed citations
10.
Carter, et al.. (2007). Race, Rights, and the Thirteenth Amendment: Defining the Badges and Incidents of Slavery. 40. 1311.1 indexed citations
Carter, et al.. (2005). A Comprehensive Conceptualization of Post-Adoptive Behaviors Associated with Information Technology Enabled Work Systems1. MIS Quarterly. 29(3). 525–558.759 indexed citations breakdown →
13.
Carter, et al.. (2004). A Thirteenth Amendment Framework for Combating Racial Profiling. 17. 17.1 indexed citations
14.
Carter, et al.. (2002). The Mote in Thy Brother’s Eye: A Review of Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry. Berkeley journal of international law. 20. 496.2 indexed citations
15.
Baity, F. W., G. C. Barber, Carter, et al.. (1999). Radio Frequency Plasma Applications for Space Propulsion. University of North Texas Digital Library (University of North Texas).8 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.