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.
Virtually human: anthropomorphism in virtual influencer marketing
202472 citationsSamira Farivar, Fang Wang et al.Journal of Retailing and Consumer Servicesprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
This map shows the geographic impact of Gerald Grant'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 Gerald Grant with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Gerald Grant more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Gerald Grant. 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 Gerald Grant. The network helps show where Gerald Grant may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Gerald Grant
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Gerald Grant.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Gerald Grant 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 Gerald Grant. Gerald Grant 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.
Farivar, Samira, et al.. (2024). Virtually human: anthropomorphism in virtual influencer marketing. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. 79. 103797–103797.72 indexed citations breakdown →
Hudson, David & Gerald Grant. (2013). A Theory of the Firm Perspective on Entrepreneurial Use of Consumer IT as Corporate IT. CONF-IRM. 6.2 indexed citations
6.
Anoopkumar‐Dukie, Shailendra, et al.. (2013). ONLINE LEARNING TOOLS IMPROVE STUDENT PERFORMANCE WHEN ALIGNED TO COURSE OBJECTIVES. 6411–6411.1 indexed citations
Grant, Gerald, et al.. (2009). Green IT: An Implementation Framework. Americas Conference on Information Systems. 64(3). 121–613.32 indexed citations
10.
Grant, Gerald, et al.. (2007). An Extended Model of IT Governance: A Conceptual Proposal. Journal of the Association for Information Systems. 215.20 indexed citations
11.
Grant, Gerald, et al.. (2006). IT Governance in Virtual Communities: An exploration of the issues in the Caribbean context. Journal of the Association for Information Systems. 530.1 indexed citations
Grant, Gerald, et al.. (1998). Teacher Peer Review: Possibility or Pipedream?.. Contemporary education. 69(4).6 indexed citations
15.
Grant, Gerald. (1994). Schools Where Kids Are Known.. The American Educator. 18(1). 38–43.2 indexed citations
16.
Grant, Gerald. (1984). Whither the Progressive College. Liberal education. 70(4).1 indexed citations
17.
Grant, Gerald, et al.. (1983). Today's Children Are Different.. Educational leadership. 40(6). 4–9.3 indexed citations
18.
Grant, Gerald. (1982). The Character of Education and the Education of Character.. American education. 18(1). 37–46.21 indexed citations
19.
Grant, Gerald. (1982). Children's Rights and Adult Confusions.. The Public interest.1 indexed citations
20.
Grant, Gerald & David Riesman. (1975). An Ecology of Academic Reform.. Daedalus.5 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.