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.
Toward a Definition of the Coproduction Concept
1983484 citationsJeffrey L. Brudney et al.Public Administration Reviewprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
Countries citing papers authored by Jeffrey L. Brudney
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Jeffrey L. Brudney'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 Jeffrey L. Brudney with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Jeffrey L. Brudney more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by Jeffrey L. Brudney
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Jeffrey L. Brudney. 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 Jeffrey L. Brudney. The network helps show where Jeffrey L. Brudney may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Jeffrey L. Brudney
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Jeffrey L. Brudney.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Jeffrey L. Brudney 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 Jeffrey L. Brudney. Jeffrey L. Brudney is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Wright, Deil S., et al.. (2014). DIMENSIONS OF CONTRACTING FOR SERVICE DELIVERY BY AMERICAN STATE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES: Exploring Linkages Between Intergovernmental Relations and Intersectoral Administration. Public Performance & Management Review.4 indexed citations
Brudney, Jeffrey L.. (2010). Sustaining Volunteer Involvement. EngagedScholarship @ Cleveland State University (Cleveland State University). 98(12). 1420–1427.2 indexed citations
13.
Meier, Kenneth J., Jeffrey L. Brudney, & John Bohte. (2009). Applied statistics for public and nonprofit administration. EngagedScholarship @ Cleveland State University (Cleveland State University).46 indexed citations
Brudney, Jeffrey L.. (2009). No "One Best Way" to Manage Change: Developing and Describing Distinct Administrative Reform Dimensions across the Fifty American States. EngagedScholarship @ Cleveland State University (Cleveland State University). 33(2). 197.9 indexed citations
16.
Hager, Mark A. & Jeffrey L. Brudney. (2008). Management Capacity and Retention of Volunteers. EngagedScholarship @ Cleveland State University (Cleveland State University). 9–27.17 indexed citations
17.
Meier, Kenneth J., Jeffrey L. Brudney, & John Bohte. (2006). Applied statistics for public and nonprofit administration. 6th rev.ed.. ORCA Online Research @Cardiff.5 indexed citations
Brudney, Jeffrey L., et al.. (1998). Volunteer Administration: Useful Techniques for the Public Sector.. 16(2). 27–37.2 indexed citations
20.
Waugh, William, et al.. (1994). Quantitative Analysis and Skill Building in Public Administration Graduate Education. ScholarWorks - Georgia State University (Georgia State University). 18(2). 204.8 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.