Countries citing papers authored by David A. Shlapak
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of David A. Shlapak'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 David A. Shlapak with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites David A. Shlapak more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by David A. Shlapak
This network shows the impact of papers produced by David A. Shlapak. 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 David A. Shlapak. The network helps show where David A. Shlapak may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of David A. Shlapak
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of David A. Shlapak.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of David A. Shlapak 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 David A. Shlapak. David A. Shlapak is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Shlapak, David A., et al.. (2016). Reinforcing Deterrence on NATO's Eastern Flank.11 indexed citations
5.
Shlapak, David A., et al.. (2016). In Defense of a Wargame: Bolstering Deterrence on NATO's Eastern Flank.2 indexed citations
6.
Heginbotham, Eric, Michael Nixon, Forrest Morgan, et al.. (2015). The U.S.-China Military Scorecard.3 indexed citations
7.
Gordon, John, et al.. (2014). Enhanced Army Airborne Forces: A New Joint Operational Capability.1 indexed citations
8.
Shlapak, David A., et al.. (2009). A Question of Balance: Political Context and Military Aspects of the China-Taiwan Dispute.27 indexed citations
9.
Grissom, Adam, et al.. (2007). A New Division of Labor: Meeting America's Security Challenges Beyond Iraq. Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC).6 indexed citations
10.
Grissom, Adam, et al.. (2007). A New Division of Labor.4 indexed citations
11.
Oliker, Olga & David A. Shlapak. (2005). U.S. interests in Central Asia : policy priorities and military roles. Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC).4 indexed citations
12.
Shlapak, David A. & Olga Oliker. (2005). U.S. Interests in Central Asia. Hospital Pediatrics. 12(2). 164–173.5 indexed citations
13.
Khalilzad, Zalmay, David T. Orletsky, Jonathan D. Pollack, et al.. (2001). The United States and Asia. Acta Crystallographica Section D Biological Crystallography. 53(Pt 4). 438–47.14 indexed citations
14.
Shlapak, David A., et al.. (2000). Dire Strait? Military Aspects of the China-Taiwan Confrontation and Options for U.S. Policy. Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC).13 indexed citations
15.
Khalilzad, Zalmay, David A. Shlapak, & Daniel Byman. (1997). The implications of the possible end of the Arab-Israeli conflict for Gulf security. RAND Corporation eBooks.3 indexed citations
Shlapak, David A. & Paul K Davis. (1991). Possible Postwar Force Requirements for Persian Gulf: How Little is Enough?. Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC).2 indexed citations
18.
Shlapak, David A., et al.. (1989). Sample Campaign Plans and Staff Assessments for NATO's Southern Region.1 indexed citations
19.
Kahan, James P., et al.. (1987). Testing the Effects of Confidence and Security-Building Measures in a Crisis : Two Political-Military Games.3 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.