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.
For the Win: How Game Thinking Can Revolutionize Your Business
20121.4k citationsKevin Werbach, Dan HunterSwinburne Research Bank (Swinburne University of Technology)profile →
Effect of melt processing conditions on the extent of exfoliation in organoclay-based nanocomposites
This map shows the geographic impact of Dan Hunter'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 Dan Hunter with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Dan Hunter more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Dan Hunter. 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 Dan Hunter. The network helps show where Dan Hunter may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Dan Hunter
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Dan Hunter.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Dan Hunter 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 Dan Hunter. Dan Hunter 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.
Bagaric, Mirko, et al.. (2021). The Solution to the Pervasive Bias and Discrimination in the Criminal Justice: Transparent Artificial Intelligence. SSRN Electronic Journal.1 indexed citations
2.
Bagaric, Mirko, et al.. (2020). PRISON ABOLITION: FROM NAÏVE IDEALISM TO TECHNOLOGICAL PRAGMATISM. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-). 111(2). 351–406.4 indexed citations
3.
Bagaric, Mirko, et al.. (2019). Erasing the bias against using artificial intelligence to predict future criminality: Algorithms are color blind and never tire. University of Cincinnati law review. 88(4). 1037.5 indexed citations
4.
Hunter, Dan, et al.. (2018). What Blockchain Can and Can't Do for Copyright. Swinburne Research Bank (Swinburne University of Technology).12 indexed citations
5.
Hunter, Dan, et al.. (2017). Can sentencing be enhanced by the use of artificial intelligence. Swinburne Research Bank (Swinburne University of Technology). 41(5). 261.10 indexed citations
6.
Bagaric, Mirko, Nick Fischer, & Dan Hunter. (2017). The Hardship That is Internet Deprivation and What it Means for Sentencing: Development of the Internet Sanction and Connectivity for Prisoners. Akron law review. 51(2). 2.8 indexed citations
7.
Bagaric, Mirko, et al.. (2017). Technological Incarceration and the End of the Prison Crisis. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-). 108(1). 73–135.3 indexed citations
8.
Bagaric, Mirko, Dan Hunter, & Nick Fischer. (2017). The hardship that is internet deprivation and what it means for sentencing. Akron law review. 51. 261–322.1 indexed citations
9.
Werbach, Kevin & Dan Hunter. (2015). The gamification toolkit: Dynamics, mechanics, and components for the win. Swinburne Research Bank (Swinburne University of Technology).174 indexed citations
10.
Babko-Malaya, Olga, et al.. (2015). Forecasting Technology Emergence from Metadata and Language of Scientific Publications and Patents.. ISSI.4 indexed citations
11.
Hunter, Dan, et al.. (2008). Amateur-to-amateur: The rise of a new creative culture.1 indexed citations
12.
Quiggin, John & Dan Hunter. (2008). Money ruins everything. Swinburne Research Bank (Swinburne University of Technology). 30(2). 203–255.2 indexed citations
13.
Hunter, Dan. (2006). Open Access to Infinite Content (Or 'In Praise of Law Reviews'). Swinburne Research Bank (Swinburne University of Technology). 10. 761.3 indexed citations
14.
Hunter, Dan, et al.. (2004). Amateur-to-Amateur. SSRN Electronic Journal.1 indexed citations
15.
Hunter, Dan. (2004). Teaching and Using Analogy in Law. Swinburne Research Bank (Swinburne University of Technology).2 indexed citations
16.
Hunter, Dan, et al.. (2004). Amateur-to-amateur. William and Mary law review. 46(3). 951.4 indexed citations
17.
Hunter, Dan. (2003). ICANN and the Concept of Democratic Deficit. Loyola of Los Angeles law review. 36(3). 1149.9 indexed citations
18.
Hunter, Dan. (1998). No wilderness of single instances: inductive inference in law. Journal of legal education.4 indexed citations
19.
Hunter, Dan, et al.. (1993). There is less to this argument than meets the eye.4 indexed citations
20.
Zeleznikow, John & Dan Hunter. (1992). Rationales for the continued development of legal expert systems.9 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.