Technologies of the Self: A Seminar with Michel Foucault.1989 · 1.3k citations
What are hit papers?
Hit papers significantly outperform the citation benchmark for their cohort. A paper qualifies
if any of the following hold:
it has ≥500 total citations;
it reaches ≥1.5× the top-1% citation threshold for papers in the same subfield and year (the
threshold is the minimum needed to enter the top 1%, not the average within it);
it reaches the top citation threshold in at least one of its specific research topics.
This map shows the geographic impact of Huck Gutman'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 Huck Gutman with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Huck Gutman more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Huck Gutman. 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 Huck Gutman. The network helps show where Huck Gutman may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network
The 5 scholars most cited alongside Huck Gutman, linked wherever they have
co-authored with each other. Click a name or a connecting line to browse the papers they
share.
Border = papers with Huck GutmanLine = papers co-authored togetherHuck Gutman links everyone, so they are left out of the graph.
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.