Countries citing papers authored by Frederick G. Conrad
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Frederick G. Conrad'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 Frederick G. Conrad with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Frederick G. Conrad more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by Frederick G. Conrad
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Frederick G. Conrad. 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 Frederick G. Conrad. The network helps show where Frederick G. Conrad may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Frederick G. Conrad
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Frederick G. Conrad.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Frederick G. Conrad 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 Frederick G. Conrad. Frederick G. Conrad is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Schober, Michael F., Josh Pasek, Lauren Guggenheim, Cliff Lampe, & Frederick G. Conrad. (2016). Social Media Analyses for Social Measurement. Public Opinion Quarterly. 80(1). 180–211.117 indexed citations
Johnston, Michael, Patrick Ehlen, Frederick G. Conrad, et al.. (2013). Spoken Dialog Systems for Automated Survey Interviewing. Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue. 329–333.10 indexed citations
Freedman, Vicki A., et al.. (2012). Assessing Time Diary Quality for Older Couples: An Analysis of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics' Disability and Use of Time (DUST) Supplement.. PubMed Central.13 indexed citations
9.
Schober, Michael F., Frederick G. Conrad, Wil Dijkstra, & Yfke Ongena. (2012). Disfluencies and Gaze Aversion in Unreliable Responses to Survey Questions. Journal of Official Statistics. 28(4). 555–582.23 indexed citations
10.
Couper, Mick P., Eleanor Singer, Frederick G. Conrad, & Robert M. Groves. (2011). Experimental studies of disclosure risk, disclosure harm, topic sensitivity and survey participation. Quality Engineering. 56(1). 55–56.18 indexed citations
Conrad, Frederick G., Lance J. Rips, & Scott Fricker. (2009). Seam effects in quantitative responses. Journal of Official Statistics. 25(3). 339–361.8 indexed citations
13.
Conrad, Frederick G.. (2007). Interactive Features of Web Surveys.. ScholarWorks@BGSU (Bowling Green State University). 20(1). 10–17.4 indexed citations
14.
Herrnson, Paul S., Richard G. Niemi, Michael J. Hanmer, et al.. (2006). The importance of usability testing of voting systems. 3–3.13 indexed citations
15.
Tourangeau, Roger, et al.. (2006). Everyday concepts and classification errors: judgments of disability and residence. Journal of Official Statistics. 22(3). 385–418.8 indexed citations
16.
Conrad, Frederick G., Mick P. Couper, Roger Tourangeau, & Andy Peytchev. (2006). Use and non-use of clarification features in web surveys. Journal of Official Statistics. 22(2). 245–269.27 indexed citations
17.
Schober, Michael F. & Frederick G. Conrad. (2005). Promoting Uniform Question Understanding in Today's and Tomorrow's Surveys. Journal of Official Statistics. 21(2). 215.8 indexed citations
Schober, Michael F., Frederick G. Conrad, & Jonathan Bloom. (2000). Clarifying Word Meanings in Computer-Administered Survey Interviews. eScholarship (California Digital Library). 22(22).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.