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 Helen Nissenbaum
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Helen Nissenbaum'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 Helen Nissenbaum with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Helen Nissenbaum more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by Helen Nissenbaum
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Helen Nissenbaum. 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 Helen Nissenbaum. The network helps show where Helen Nissenbaum may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Helen Nissenbaum
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Helen Nissenbaum.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Helen Nissenbaum 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 Helen Nissenbaum. Helen Nissenbaum is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Martin, Kirsten & Helen Nissenbaum. (2017). Privacy Interests in Public Records: An Empirical Investigation. 31(1). 111.15 indexed citations
6.
Nissenbaum, Helen & Finn Brunton. (2015). Vernacular Resistance to Data Collection and Analysis: A Political Theory. SSRN Electronic Journal.2 indexed citations
7.
Nissenbaum, Helen. (2015). New Research Norms for a New Medium. SSRN Electronic Journal.
8.
Toubiana, Vincent & Helen Nissenbaum. (2011). An Analysis of Google Log Retention Policies. SSRN Electronic Journal.2 indexed citations
Flanagan, Mary, et al.. (2009). Instructional Methods and Curricula for “Values Conscious Design”. 3(4).11 indexed citations
11.
Hansen, Lene & Helen Nissenbaum. (2009). Digital Disaster, Cyber Security and the Copenhagen School. SSRN Electronic Journal.21 indexed citations
12.
Barocas, Solon & Helen Nissenbaum. (2009). On Notice: The Trouble with Notice and Consent. SSRN Electronic Journal.33 indexed citations
13.
Barth, Adam, Anupam Datta, John C. Mitchell, & Helen Nissenbaum. (2007). Privacy and Contextual Integrity: Framework and Applications. SSRN Electronic Journal.6 indexed citations
14.
Flanagan, Mary, Daniel C. Howe, & Helen Nissenbaum. (2005). Values at play: Tradeoffs in socially-oriented game design. Human Factors in Computing Systems. 751–760.2 indexed citations
15.
Nissenbaum, Helen & Monroe E. Price. (2004). Academy & the Internet. Peter Lang eBooks.3 indexed citations
16.
Nissenbaum, Helen. (2004). Privacy as Contextual Integrity. Washington law review. 79(1). 119–157.15 indexed citations
17.
Nissenbaum, Helen. (2004). Will security enhance trust online, or supplant it?. SSRN Electronic Journal. 155–188.33 indexed citations
18.
Galston, William A., Lucas D. Introna, Peter Levine, et al.. (2004). The Internet in Public Life. Rowman & Littlefield eBooks.9 indexed citations
19.
Nissenbaum, Helen, et al.. (2002). Protecting privacy in an information age. 1(2). 171–201.23 indexed citations
20.
Introna, Lucas D. & Helen Nissenbaum. (2000). The politics of search engines. IEEE Spectrum. 37(6). 26–27.3 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.