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 J. J. M. Powell
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of J. J. M. Powell'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. J. M. Powell with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites J. J. M. Powell more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by J. J. M. Powell. 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. J. M. Powell. The network helps show where J. J. M. Powell may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of J. J. M. Powell
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of J. J. M. Powell.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of J. J. M. Powell 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. J. M. Powell. J. J. M. Powell is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Powell, J. J. M. & Michael Brown. (2006). Statnamic pile testing for foundation re-use. Discovery Research Portal (University of Dundee). 223–236.4 indexed citations
5.
Powell, J. J. M. & Tom Lunne. (2005). Use of CPTU data in clays/fine grained soils. Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica. 27. 29–65.22 indexed citations
6.
Powell, J. J. M., et al.. (2003). Characterisation of a glacial clay till at Cowden, Humberside. Pages.8 indexed citations
Butcher, Anthony & J. J. M. Powell. (1996). PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR FIELD GEOPHYSICAL TECHNIQUES USED TO ASSESS GROUND STIFFNESS.21 indexed citations
Lunne, Tom, et al.. (1990). CORRELATION OF DILATOMETER READINGS WITH LATERAL STRESS IN CLAYS. Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board.4 indexed citations
16.
Powell, J. J. M.. (1990). A COMPARISON OF FOUR DIFFERENT PRESSUREMETERS AND THEIR METHODS OF INTERPRETATION IN A STIFF HEAVILY OVERCONSOLIDATED CLAY . PRESSUREMETERS. PROCEEDINGS OF THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM, ORGANISED BY THE BRITISH GEOTECHNICAL SOCIETY, OXFORD UNIVERSITY, APRIL 2-6, 1990.1 indexed citations
17.
Marsland, A. & J. J. M. Powell. (1989). INVESTIGATION OF CONE PENETRATION TEST IN BRITISH CLAY CARRIED OUT BY THE BUILDING RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT 1960-86. PENETRATION TESTING IN THE UK. PROCEEDINGS OF THE GEOTECHNOLOGY CONFERENCE ORGANIZED BY THE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS AND HELD IN BIRMINGHAM ON 6-8 JULY 1988.6 indexed citations
18.
Powell, J. J. M., et al.. (1989). INTERPRETATION AND USE OF THE PIEZOCONE TEST IN UK CLAYS. PENETRATION TESTING IN THE UK. PROCEEDINGS OF THE GEOTECHNOLOGY CONFERENCE ORGANIZED BY THE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS AND HELD IN BIRMINGHAM ON 6-8 JULY 1988.17 indexed citations
19.
Powell, J. J. M., et al.. (1989). THE INTERPRETATION OF THE MARCHETTI DILATOMETER TEST IN UK CLAYS. PENETRATION TESTING IN THE UK. PROCEEDINGS OF THE GEOTECHNOLOGY CONFERENCE ORGANIZED BY THE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS AND HELD IN BIRMINGHAM ON 6-8 JULY 1988.12 indexed citations
20.
Powell, J. J. M., et al.. (1986). Evaluating the Screw Plate Test in Stiff Clay Soils in the UK. 128.1 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.