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.
Higher market valuation of companies with a small board of directors
19965.1k citationsDavid YermackJournal of Financial Economicsprofile →
Managerial Entrenchment and Capital Structure Decisions
19971.2k citationsEli Ofek, David Yermack et al.profile →
CEO Involvement in the Selection of New Board Members: An Empirical Analysis
This map shows the geographic impact of David Yermack'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 Yermack with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites David Yermack more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by David Yermack. 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 Yermack. The network helps show where David Yermack may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of David Yermack
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of David Yermack.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of David Yermack 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 Yermack. David Yermack is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Lee, Jongsub, et al.. (2017). Credit Default Swaps, Agency Problems, and Management Incentives. RePEc: Research Papers in Economics.1 indexed citations
8.
Rosa, Raymond da Silva, et al.. (2015). Evaluating Creeping Acquisitions. Sydney law review. 37(1). 37–67.
9.
Yermack, David & Chenyang Wei. (2009). Stockholder and Bondholder Reactions To Revelations of Large CEO InsideDebt Holdings: An Empirical Analysis. The Faculty Digital Archive (New York University).5 indexed citations
10.
Yermack, David. (2006). Board Members and Company Value. SSRN Electronic Journal.2 indexed citations
11.
Hartzell, Jay C., Eli Ofek, & David Yermack. (2001). What S in it for Me? Ceos Whose Firms are Acquired. The Faculty Digital Archive (New York University).37 indexed citations
12.
Yermack, David, et al.. (1999). Major League Baseball Player Contracts: An Investigation of the Empirical Properties of Real Options. The Faculty Digital Archive (New York University).5 indexed citations
Mehran, Hamid & David Yermack. (1997). Compensation and Top Management Turnover. The Faculty Digital Archive (New York University).10 indexed citations
16.
Ofek, Eli & David Yermack. (1997). Does Equity-Based Compensation Increase Managers' Ownership?. The Faculty Digital Archive (New York University).1 indexed citations
17.
Mehran, Hamid & David Yermack. (1996). Stock-Based Compensation and Top Management Turnover. The Faculty Digital Archive (New York University).2 indexed citations
18.
Yermack, David. (1996). Higher market valuation of companies with a small board of directors. Journal of Financial Economics. 40(2). 185–211.5136 indexed citations breakdown →
Yermack, David. (1994). The Superior Performance of Companies with Small Boards of Directors. The Faculty Digital Archive (New York University).2 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.