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 Henry Chesbrough
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Henry Chesbrough'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 Henry Chesbrough with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Henry Chesbrough more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by Henry Chesbrough
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Henry Chesbrough. 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 Henry Chesbrough. The network helps show where Henry Chesbrough may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Henry Chesbrough
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Henry Chesbrough.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Henry Chesbrough 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 Henry Chesbrough. Henry Chesbrough is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Dąbrowska, Justyna, Argyro Almpanopoulou, Alexander Brem, et al.. (2022). Digital transformation, for better or worse: a critical multi‐level research agenda. R and D Management. 52(5). 930–954.169 indexed citations breakdown →
Bogers, Marcel, Henry Chesbrough, & Robert Strand. (2019). Sustainable Open Innovation to Address a Grand Challenge: Lessons from Carlsberg and the Green Fiber Bottle. SSRN Electronic Journal.5 indexed citations
8.
Brunswicker, Sabine & Henry Chesbrough. (2018). The Adoption of Open Innovation in Large Firms: Practices, Measures, and Risks. Research-Technology Management. 61(1). 35.12 indexed citations
9.
Weiblen, Tobias & Henry Chesbrough. (2015). Engaging with Startups to Enhance Corporate Innovation. California Management Review. 57(2). 66–90.330 indexed citations breakdown →
West, Joel, Ammon Salter, Wim Vanhaverbeke, & Henry Chesbrough. (2014). Open innovation: The next decade. Research Policy. 43(5). 805–811.601 indexed citations breakdown →
12.
Chesbrough, Henry. (2010). Open Innovation : Has its time come in Japan?. 25(1). 2–5.1 indexed citations
13.
Chesbrough, Henry. (2010). Open Services Innovation: Rethinking Your Business to Grow and Compete in a New Era. CERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research).303 indexed citations
14.
Sandulli, Francesco Domenico & Henry Chesbrough. (2009). Open Business Models: Las dos caras de los Modelos de Negocio Abiertos. Universia business review. 2(22). 12–39.12 indexed citations
Chesbrough, Henry. (2005). Toward a New Science of Services. Harvard business review. 20–21.8 indexed citations
18.
Chesbrough, Henry. (2004). Managing Open Innovation: In Uncertain Markets, New Metrics Can Help Companies to Play Poker as Well as Chess. Research-Technology Management. 47(1). 23.14 indexed citations
Christensen, Clayton M. & Henry Chesbrough. (2001). Technology Markets, Technology Organization, and Appropriating the Returns of Research.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.