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.
Current Normative Concepts in Conservation
1999252 citationsJ. Baird Callicott et al.profile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
Countries citing papers authored by J. Baird Callicott
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of J. Baird Callicott'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 J. Baird Callicott with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites J. Baird Callicott more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by J. Baird Callicott
This network shows the impact of papers produced by J. Baird Callicott. 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 J. Baird Callicott. The network helps show where J. Baird Callicott may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of J. Baird Callicott
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of J. Baird Callicott.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of J. Baird Callicott 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 J. Baird Callicott. J. Baird Callicott is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Nelson, Michael & J. Baird Callicott. (2008). The wilderness debate rages on : continuing the great new wilderness debate. DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library).56 indexed citations
Callicott, J. Baird. (2000). Contemporary criticisms of the received wilderness idea. 15. 24–31.16 indexed citations
8.
Callicott, J. Baird. (1999). The arboretum and the university: the speech and the essay. Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters. 87.5 indexed citations
9.
Callicott, J. Baird & Michael Nelson. (1998). The Great New Wilderness Debate. DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library).249 indexed citations
Zimmerman, Michael E. & J. Baird Callicott. (1993). Environmental Philosophy: From Animal Rights to Radical Ecology. DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library).207 indexed citations
14.
Leopold, Aldo, Susan L. Flader, & J. Baird Callicott. (1991). The river of the mother of God and other essays. University of Wisconsin Press eBooks.25 indexed citations
Callicott, J. Baird. (1989). In defense of the land ethic: essays in environmental philosophy. DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library).318 indexed citations
17.
Callicott, J. Baird. (1984). Non-Anthropocentric Value Theory and Environmental Ethics. American Philosophical Quarterly. 21(4).108 indexed citations
18.
Callicott, J. Baird. (1983). The Land Aesthetic. 7(4). 345–358.20 indexed citations
Overholt, Thomas W., J. Baird Callicott, & William Jones. (1982). Clothed-in-Fur, and Other Tales an Introduction to an Ojibwa World View /Thomas W. Overholt and J. Baird Callicott ; with Ojibwa Texts by William Jones and Foreword by Mary B. Black-Rogers. --. --.1 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.