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.
The New Environmental Governance
201399 citationsCameron Holley, Clifford Shearing et al.profile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
Countries citing papers authored by Clifford Shearing
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Clifford Shearing'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 Clifford Shearing with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Clifford Shearing more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by Clifford Shearing
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Clifford Shearing. 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 Clifford Shearing. The network helps show where Clifford Shearing may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Clifford Shearing
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Clifford Shearing.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Clifford Shearing 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 Clifford Shearing. Clifford Shearing is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Shearing, Clifford, Michael Kempa, & Philip Stenning. (2016). Policing in Canada in the 21st Century: Directions for Law Reform. SSRN Electronic Journal.1 indexed citations
11.
Marks, Monique & Clifford Shearing. (2010). Who Should the Police Be? Finding a New Narrative for Community Policing in South Africa. SSRN Electronic Journal.1 indexed citations
12.
Shearing, Clifford, et al.. (2007). Beyond Restorative Justice - Zwelethemba, a future-focused model using local capacity conflict resolution. ANU Open Research (Australian National University).4 indexed citations
13.
Drahos, Peter, Clifford Shearing, & Scott Burris. (2005). Nodal governance as an approach to regulation. ANU Open Research (Australian National University). 30. 30–58.10 indexed citations
14.
Shearing, Clifford. (2001). Transforming security: A South African experiment. ANU Open Research (Australian National University).27 indexed citations
15.
Shearing, Clifford. (2001). A Nodal Conception of Governance: Thoughts on a Police Commission. SSRN Electronic Journal.5 indexed citations
16.
Bayley, David H. & Clifford Shearing. (2001). New Structure of Policing: Description, Conceptualization, and Research Agenda.137 indexed citations
17.
Shearing, Clifford & Philip Stenning. (1985). Corporate Perceptions of Private Security. SSRN Electronic Journal.4 indexed citations
18.
Shearing, Clifford & Philip Stenning. (1985). Public Perceptions of Private Security. SSRN Electronic Journal.12 indexed citations
19.
Shearing, Clifford. (1981). Introduction to Organizational Police Deviance: Its Structure and Control. SSRN Electronic Journal.1 indexed citations
20.
Shearing, Clifford. (1979). Private Security and Private Justice: Doing Justice to Justice. SSRN Electronic Journal.1 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.