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.
Beyond ‘Revenge Porn’: The Continuum of Image-Based Sexual Abuse
2017230 citationsClare McGlynn, Erika Rackley et al.Feminist Legal Studiesprofile →
Image-Based Sexual Abuse
2016179 citationsClare McGlynn, Erika RackleyOxford Journal of Legal Studiesprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
This map shows the geographic impact of Erika Rackley'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 Erika Rackley with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Erika Rackley more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Erika Rackley. 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 Erika Rackley. The network helps show where Erika Rackley may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Erika Rackley
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Erika Rackley.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Erika Rackley 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 Erika Rackley. Erika Rackley 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.
Rackley, Erika, et al.. (2023). Tort Law. Oxford University Press eBooks.
Rackley, Erika & Rosemary Auchmuty. (2020). The Case for Feminist Legal History. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 40(4). 878–904.3 indexed citations
7.
McGlynn, Clare & Erika Rackley. (2017). More than 'Revenge Porn' : image-based sexual abuse and the reform of Irish law.. Durham Research Online (Durham University).5 indexed citations
8.
McGlynn, Clare, Erika Rackley, & Ruth Houghton. (2017). Beyond ‘Revenge Porn’: The Continuum of Image-Based Sexual Abuse. Feminist Legal Studies. 25(1). 25–46.230 indexed citations breakdown →
McGlynn, Clare & Erika Rackley. (2016). Image-Based Sexual Abuse. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 37(3). 534–561.179 indexed citations breakdown →
11.
Rackley, Erika, et al.. (2013). Tort Law (3rd Edition). Kent Academic Repository (University of Kent).
12.
Rackley, Erika & Clare McGlynn. (2013). Prosecuting the Possession of Extreme Pornography: A Misunderstood and Misused Law. Durham Research Online (Durham University).1 indexed citations
13.
Rackley, Erika, et al.. (2013). Tort Law. Oxford University Press eBooks.3 indexed citations
Westmarland, Nicole, Erika Rackley, & Clare McGlynn. (2007). Positions on the politics of porn : debate on Government plans to criminalise the possession of extreme pornography.. Durham Research Online (Durham University).4 indexed citations
18.
Rackley, Erika. (2007). From Arachne to Charlotte: An Imaginative Revisiting of Gilligan's "In A Different Voice". Durham Research Online (Durham University). 13(3). 751.2 indexed citations
19.
McGlynn, Clare & Erika Rackley. (2007). Striking a Balance: Arguments for the Criminal Regulation of Extreme Pornography. Durham Research Online (Durham 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.