This map shows the geographic impact of J. G. Virtue'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. G. Virtue with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites J. G. Virtue more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by J. G. Virtue. 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. G. Virtue. The network helps show where J. G. Virtue may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of J. G. Virtue
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of J. G. Virtue.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of J. G. Virtue 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. G. Virtue. J. G. Virtue is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Auld, B. A., S. B. Johnson, N. Ainsworth, et al.. (2012). Further development of the National Weed Risk Management Protocol. University of Canberra Research Portal. 317–319.3 indexed citations
Virtue, J. G., et al.. (2010). Managing the weed risk of cultivated Arundo donax L.. 176–179.8 indexed citations
5.
Virtue, J. G., N. D. Crossman, & David Cooke. (2008). Successes and lessons from olive risk management in South Australia.. Plant protection quarterly. 23(2). 80–82.1 indexed citations
6.
Virtue, J. G., et al.. (2008). Predicting weediness - what has the Weeds CRC achieved?. 39–41.1 indexed citations
7.
Virtue, J. G., et al.. (2006). The importance of vegetative seedling traits in distinguishing herbaceous legumes of differing impact in temperate natural ecosystems.. Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide). 707–710.1 indexed citations
8.
Virtue, J. G., et al.. (2006). Sampling challenges in detecting branched broomrape seed bank decline.. 622–625.6 indexed citations
9.
Virtue, J. G., et al.. (2006). Is Retama raetam (Forsskal) Webb a legitimate alert list species. Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide). 735–738.1 indexed citations
10.
Turner, Peter, J. G. Virtue, & J. K. Scott. (2006). An eight year removal experiment measuring the impact of bridal creeper (Asparagus asparagoides (L.) Druce) and the potential benefit from its control.. Plant protection quarterly. 21(2). 79–84.23 indexed citations
11.
Virtue, J. G., et al.. (2006). Potential use of isothiocyanates in branched broomrape eradication.. 629–632.8 indexed citations
Pheloung, P. C., R. H. Groves, F. D. Panetta, & J. G. Virtue. (2001). Weed risk assessment for plant introductions to Australia.. 83–92.30 indexed citations
15.
Wainger, Lisa, Dennis M. King, R. H. Groves, F. D. Panetta, & J. G. Virtue. (2001). Priorities for weed risk assessment: using a landscape context to assess indicators of functions, services and values.. 34–51.6 indexed citations
16.
Reichard, Sarah, R. H. Groves, F. D. Panetta, & J. G. Virtue. (2001). The search for patterns that enable prediction of invasion.. 10–19.18 indexed citations
Virtue, J. G., et al.. (2000). Weed interference reduces yield of coppiced tea tree (.1 indexed citations
19.
Virtue, J. G. & R. C. H. Shepherd. (1996). Improving the assessment of new weed threats: developing techniques with cruciferous weeds of cropping.. 85–88.2 indexed citations
20.
Virtue, J. G., et al.. (1993). Weed interference in tea tree plantations.. 261–264.
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.