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 case for open computer programs
2012351 citationsDarrel Ince, Leslie Hatton et al.Natureprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
This map shows the geographic impact of Darrel Ince'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 Darrel Ince with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Darrel Ince more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Darrel Ince. 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 Darrel Ince. The network helps show where Darrel Ince may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Darrel Ince
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Darrel Ince.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Darrel Ince 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 Darrel Ince. Darrel Ince 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.
Ince, Darrel, Leslie Hatton, & John Graham-Cumming. (2012). The case for open computer programs. Nature. 482(7386). 485–488.351 indexed citations breakdown →
Ince, Darrel, et al.. (2006). The Economics of Unit Testing. Empirical Software Engineering. 11(1). 5–31.34 indexed citations
5.
Ince, Darrel, et al.. (2002). Towards an Analytical Role Modelling Framework for Security Requirements.24 indexed citations
6.
Ince, Darrel. (2001). Dictionary of the Internet: Book and CD-ROM with Cdrom. Oxford University Press eBooks.1 indexed citations
7.
Ince, Darrel. (2000). From Data Structures to Patterns. Medical Entomology and Zoology.
8.
Ince, Darrel, et al.. (1995). The symbolic execution of software : the SYM-BOL system. Chapman & Hall eBooks.7 indexed citations
9.
Ince, Darrel. (1995). Software Quality Assurance: A Student Introduction. McGraw-Hill, Inc. eBooks.5 indexed citations
10.
Ince, Darrel. (1994). Iso 9001 and Software Quality Assurance. Medical Entomology and Zoology.17 indexed citations
11.
Ince, Darrel, Mark Woodman, & Helen Sharp. (1993). Introduction to Software Project Management and Quality Assurance. CERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research).7 indexed citations
12.
Ince, Darrel, et al.. (1991). Practical formal methods with VDM.34 indexed citations
Ince, Darrel. (1989). Martin J. Shepperd: An Empirical and Theoretical Analysis of an Information Flow-Based System Design Metric. 86–99.3 indexed citations
17.
Ince, Darrel. (1988). Z and system specification. Information and Software Technology. 30(3). 138–145.3 indexed citations
18.
Ince, Darrel. (1985). The validation, verification and testing of software. Oxford University Press eBooks. 1–40.1 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.