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.
Citations per year, relative to Edmund Jephcott Edmund Jephcott (= 1×)
peers
Max Horkheimer
Countries citing papers authored by Edmund Jephcott
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Edmund Jephcott'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 Edmund Jephcott with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Edmund Jephcott more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Edmund Jephcott. 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 Edmund Jephcott. The network helps show where Edmund Jephcott may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Edmund Jephcott
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Edmund Jephcott.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Edmund Jephcott 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 Edmund Jephcott. Edmund Jephcott 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.
Liston, Katie, Stephen Mennell, Richard Kilminster, & Edmund Jephcott. (2013). Interviews and Autobiographical Reflections. Medical Entomology and Zoology.8 indexed citations
2.
Elias, Norbert, Stephen Mennell, Eric Dunning, et al.. (2012). On the process of civilisation : sociogenetic and psychogenetic investigations.33 indexed citations
3.
Elias, Norbert, Alan Scott, Brigitte Scott, & Edmund Jephcott. (2010). The loneliness of the dying ; and, Humana conditio : observations on the development of humanity on the fortieth anniversary of the end of a war (8 May 1985).2 indexed citations
Adorno, Theodor W., Rolf Tiedemann, & Edmund Jephcott. (1997). Beethoven: The Philosophy of Music. Medical Entomology and Zoology.34 indexed citations
8.
Grimal, Pierre, et al.. (1997). Churches of Rome. Medical Entomology and Zoology.1 indexed citations
9.
Zussman, Robert, Norbert Elias, Edmund Jephcott, et al.. (1996). Autobiographical Occasions. Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews. 25(2). 143–143.21 indexed citations
10.
Adorno, Theodor W., et al.. (1996). Young Adorno. Transition. 160–160.1 indexed citations
11.
Johnson, Julian, Theodor W. Adorno, Edmund Jephcott, & Rodney Livingstone. (1995). Mahler: A Musical Physiognomy. Music Analysis. 14(1). 112–112.5 indexed citations
12.
Franklin, Peter, Theodor W. Adorno, & Edmund Jephcott. (1993). Mahler: A Musical Physiognomy. The Musical Times. 134(1801). 147–147.38 indexed citations
Elias, Norbert & Edmund Jephcott. (1982). State formation and civilization.64 indexed citations
17.
Benjamín, Walter, et al.. (1980). Reflections: Essays, Aphorisms, Autobiographical Writings. World Literature Today. 54(2). 279–279.582 indexed citations breakdown →
18.
Mosse, George L., Norbert Elias, & Edmund Jephcott. (1978). The Civilizing Process: The History of Manners. New German Critique. 178–178.393 indexed citations breakdown →
Jephcott, Edmund, et al.. (1973). Cost-benefit analysis and public investment in transport : a survey.7 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.