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.
Countries citing papers authored by Dorothy E. Denning
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Dorothy E. Denning'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 Dorothy E. Denning with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Dorothy E. Denning more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by Dorothy E. Denning
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Dorothy E. Denning. 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 Dorothy E. Denning. The network helps show where Dorothy E. Denning may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Dorothy E. Denning
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Dorothy E. Denning.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Dorothy E. Denning 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 Dorothy E. Denning. Dorothy E. Denning is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Denning, Peter J. & Dorothy E. Denning. (2010). The Profession of IT, Discussing Cyber Attack. Communications of the ACM. 53(9). 29–31.7 indexed citations
3.
Scott, Logan & Dorothy E. Denning. (2003). Location Based Encryption and Its Role In Digital Cinema Distribution. Calhoun: The Naval Postgraduate School Institutional Archive (Naval Postgraduate School). 288–297.16 indexed citations
4.
Denning, Dorothy E.. (2003). Information Technology and Security. Calhoun: The Naval Postgraduate School Institutional Archive (Naval Postgraduate School).21 indexed citations
5.
Denning, Dorothy E.. (1997). Encryption policy and market trends. 449–473.1 indexed citations
6.
Denning, Dorothy E. & P. F. Macdoran. (1997). Location-based authentication: grounding cyberspace for better security. 167–174.16 indexed citations
7.
Denning, Dorothy E.. (1997). International encryption policy. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc. eBooks. 105–118.3 indexed citations
8.
Denning, Dorothy E. & Dennis K. Branstad. (1997). A taxonomy for key recovery encryption systems. 357–371.4 indexed citations
9.
Denning, Dorothy E., et al.. (1996). Key Escrow Encryption Policies and Technologies. Villanova law review. 41(1). 289.6 indexed citations
10.
Denning, Dorothy E.. (1995). International key escrow encryption: proposed objectives and options. Springer eBooks. 208–225.1 indexed citations
11.
Brickell, Ernest F., et al.. (1995). SKIPJACK review: interim report. Springer eBooks. 119–130.7 indexed citations
12.
Denning, Dorothy E.. (1995). The U.S. key escrow encryption technology. Springer eBooks. 111–118.3 indexed citations
13.
Denning, Dorothy E.. (1995). The case for “Clipper”. Technology Review. 98(5). 48–55.4 indexed citations
14.
Denning, Dorothy E.. (1993). The Clipper Encryption System. American Scientist. 81(4). 319–323.7 indexed citations
15.
Denning, Dorothy E.. (1987). Lessons Learned from Modeling a Secure Multilevel Relational Database System.. 35–43.1 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.