James S. Dietz
- Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty top 1%
- Strategy and Management top 5%
- Management of Technology and Innovation top 2%
- Economics and Econometrics top 5%
- Political Science and International Relations top 5%
- Co-authors
- Barry BozemanMonica GaughanIvan ChompalovJong‐Won ParkJuan D. RogersConrad KatzenmeyerJames H. Street
- Topics
- Innovation and Knowledge Management (3 papers)Entrepreneurship Studies and Influences (2 papers)scientometrics and bibliometrics research (2 papers)
- Cited by
- Statistics, Probability and UncertaintyManagement of Technology and InnovationStrategy and Management
- Partner nations
- United States
In The Last Decade
James S. Dietz
9 papers receiving 709 citations
Peers
Comparison fields: 5 of 82
- Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty 256
- Strategy and Management 249
- Management of Technology and Innovation 248
- Economics and Econometrics 240
- Political Science and International Relations 118
Countries citing papers authored by James S. Dietz
This map shows the geographic impact of James S. Dietz'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 S. Dietz with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites James S. Dietz more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by James S. Dietz
This network shows the impact of papers produced by James S. Dietz. 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 S. Dietz. The network helps show where James S. Dietz may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of James S. Dietz
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of James S. Dietz. A scholar is included among the top collaborators of James S. Dietz 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 S. Dietz. James S. Dietz is excluded from the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
All Works
| # | Work | Indexed citations |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 11 | |
| 2 | 318 | |
| 3 | 10 | |
| 4 | 310 | |
| 5 | 9 | |
| 6 | 98 | |
| 7 | 24 | |
| 8 | The United States and Mexico: Face to Face with New Technology | 11 |
| 9 | 3 |
About James S. Dietz
James S. Dietz is a scholar working on Management of Technology and Innovation, Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty and Strategy and Management, having authored 9 papers that have together received 794 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Innovation and Knowledge Management (3 papers), Entrepreneurship Studies and Influences (2 papers) and scientometrics and bibliometrics research (2 papers). The work is most often cited by research in Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty (256 citations), Management of Technology and Innovation (248 citations) and Strategy and Management (249 citations). James S. Dietz has collaborated with scholars based in United States. Frequent co-authors include Barry Bozeman, Monica Gaughan, Ivan Chompalov, Jong‐Won Park, Juan D. Rogers, Conrad Katzenmeyer and James H. Street. Their work appears in journals such as Research Policy, Scientometrics and The Journal of Technology Transfer.
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.