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.
The Elements of Language Curriculum: A Systematic Approach to Program Development
Countries citing papers authored by James Dean Brown
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of James Dean Brown'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 James Dean Brown with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites James Dean Brown more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by James Dean Brown
This network shows the impact of papers produced by James Dean Brown. 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 James Dean Brown. The network helps show where James Dean Brown may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of James Dean Brown
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of James Dean Brown.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of James Dean Brown 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 James Dean Brown. James Dean Brown is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Brown, James Dean, Maria‐Helena Ramos, & Nathalie Voisin. (2013). Intercomparison of streamflow postprocessing techniques: first results of a HEPEX community experiment. EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts.2 indexed citations
5.
Liu, Yuqiong, James Dean Brown, Julie Demargne, & Dong‐Jun Seo. (2010). Using Wavelet Analysis to Assess Timing Errors in Streamflow Predictions. EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts. 5456.1 indexed citations
Brown, James Dean. (2010). How are PCA and EFA used in language research.2 indexed citations
8.
Seo, D., et al.. (2008). Ensemble Data Assimilation for Channel Flow Routing to Improve Operational Hydrologic Forecasting. AGUFM. 2008.1 indexed citations
Brown, James Dean & Kimi Kondo‐Brown. (2006). Perspectives on teaching connected speech to second language speakers.37 indexed citations
12.
Klauer, Bernd & James Dean Brown. (2004). Conceptualising imperfect knowledge in public decision-making: ignorance, uncertainty, error and risk situations. UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam).22 indexed citations
13.
Brown, James Dean, G.B.M. Heuvelink, & Jens Christian Refsgaard. (2004). An integrated framework for assessing uncertainties in environmental data. Water Science & Technology. 52(6). 152–160.2 indexed citations
14.
Brown, James Dean. (2002). DO CLOZE TESTS WORK? OR, IS IT JUST AN ILLUSION?. ScholarSpace (University of Hawaii at Manoa). 31(4). 782–7.25 indexed citations
Brown, James Dean. (1997). Designing Surveys for Language Programs..2 indexed citations
20.
Brown, James Dean. (1992). TECHNOLOGY AND LANGUAGE EDUCATION IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY : MEDIA, MESSAGE, AND METHOD. 1–22.4 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.