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.
A reconceptualization of fear of failure in entrepreneurship
2016271 citationsGabriella Cacciotti, James C. Hayton 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 Janet Mitchell
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Janet Mitchell'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 Janet Mitchell with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Janet Mitchell more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Janet Mitchell. 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 Janet Mitchell. The network helps show where Janet Mitchell may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Janet Mitchell
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Janet Mitchell.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Janet Mitchell 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 Janet Mitchell. Janet Mitchell is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
All Works
20 of 20 papers shown
1.
Plummer, Lawrence A., Janet Mitchell, & Jeffery S. McMullen. (2016). What exactly IS Martin Shkreli?. Business Horizons. 60(1). 19–24.3 indexed citations
Hayton, James C., et al.. (2013). UNDERSTANDING FEAR OF FAILURE IN ENTREPRENEURSHIP: A COGNITIVE PROCESS FRAMEWORK. Frontiers of entrepreneurship research. 33(6). 1.10 indexed citations
Mitchell, Janet & Dean A. Shepherd. (2011). AFRAID OF OPPORTUNITY: THE EFFECTS OF FEAR OF FAILURE ON ENTREPRENEURIAL ACTION. Frontiers of entrepreneurship research. 31(6). 1.29 indexed citations
Mitchell, Ronald K., et al.. (2008). Entrepreneurship, Thinking, and Economic Self-Reliance. 10(1). 8–13.1 indexed citations
10.
Fender, Ingo & Janet Mitchell. (2005). Structured Finance: Complexity, Risk and the Use of Ratings. SSRN Electronic Journal. 3(1). 127–135.21 indexed citations
11.
Mitchell, Janet, Veronica Gustavsson, J. Brock Smith, Per Davidsson, & Ronald K. Mitchell. (2005). THINKING ABOUT THINKING ABOUT THINKING: EXPLORING HOW ENTREPRENEURIAL METACOGNITION AFFECTS ENTREPRENEURIAL EXPERTISE. Frontiers of entrepreneurship research.20 indexed citations
Fender, Ingo, et al.. (2003). The changing incentive structure of institutional asset managers: implications for financial markets. 94–105.1 indexed citations
14.
Mitchell, Janet. (2001). Bad Debts and the Cleaning of Banks' Balance Sheets: An Application to Economies in Transition. SSRN Electronic Journal.3 indexed citations
Mitchell, Janet. (1998). The Problem of Bad Debts: Cleaning Bank's Balance Sheets in Economies in Transition. SSRN Electronic Journal.4 indexed citations
18.
Mitchell, Janet. (1997). Strategic Creditor Passivity, Regulation, and Bank Bailouts. Deep Blue (University of Michigan).18 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.