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.
This map shows the geographic impact of Jill Collis'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 Jill Collis with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Jill Collis more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Jill Collis. 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 Jill Collis. The network helps show where Jill Collis may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Jill Collis
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Jill Collis.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Jill Collis 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 Jill Collis. Jill Collis 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.
Collis, Jill, et al.. (2020). Costs and benefits of FRS 102, The Financial Reporting Standard applicable in the UK and Republic of Ireland. Brunel University Research Archive (BURA) (Brunel University London).1 indexed citations
Kinnunen, Juha, et al.. (2017). What turns the taxman on? Audit opinion and tax return adjustments in a voluntary audit environment.3 indexed citations
Collis, Jill, Andrew Holt, & Roger Hussey. (2012). Business Accounting: An Introduction to Financial and Management Accounting. Research Repository (Kingston University London).2 indexed citations
Collis, Jill. (2008). Views of the directors of SMEs in the UK on financial reporting requirements in a changing regulatory environment. Research Repository (Kingston University London).4 indexed citations
11.
Collis, Jill. (2008). Directors' views on accounting and auditing requirements for SMEs. Research Repository (Kingston University London).23 indexed citations
12.
Marriott, Neil, et al.. (2008). The accountant and the provision of financial advice toUK smaller companies.1 indexed citations
13.
Collis, Jill. (2007). Progress towards harmonisation of audit exemption in the EU and the case of the UK. Research Repository (Kingston University London).1 indexed citations
14.
Collis, Jill. (2005). Size theory and the demand for voluntary audit by small companies in the UK. Research Repository (Kingston University London).4 indexed citations
Jarvis, Robin & Jill Collis. (2003). IFRSs and differential reporting: a UK case study. Research Repository (Kingston University London).2 indexed citations
17.
Jarvis, Robin & Jill Collis. (2003). International Financial Reporting Standards and differential reporting. Research Repository (Kingston University London).2 indexed citations
18.
Jarvis, Robin & Jill Collis. (2003). IFRSs and differential reporting. Research Repository (Kingston University London).6 indexed citations
19.
Collis, Jill & Robin Jarvis. (2002). Financial reporting reform and choices made by smaller entities. Research Repository (Kingston University London).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.