This map shows the geographic impact of John Armour'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 John Armour with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites John Armour more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by John Armour. 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 John Armour. The network helps show where John Armour may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of John Armour
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of John Armour.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of John Armour 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 John Armour. John Armour is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Armour, John. (2012). The Rise of the ‘Pre-Pack’: Corporate Restructuring in the UK and Proposals for Reform. SSRN Electronic Journal.5 indexed citations
5.
Armour, John, Bernard S. Black, & Brian R. Cheffins. (2012). Delaware's Balancing Act. Indiana law journal. 87(4). 1.6 indexed citations
Armour, John, et al.. (2011). The evolution of hostile takeover regimes in developed and emerging markets: an analytical framework. Harvard international law journal. 52(1). 219–285.15 indexed citations
9.
Armour, John, Simon Deakin, Prabirjit Sarkar, Mathias Siems, & Ajit Singh. (2009). Shareholder protection and stock market development: a test of the legal origins hypothesis. UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia).7 indexed citations
10.
Armour, John, Henry Hansmann, & Reinier Kraakman. (2009). Essential Elements of Corporate Law. SSRN Electronic Journal.
11.
Armour, John & Jennifer Payne. (2009). Rationality in company law : essays in honour of DD Prentice. Hart Publishing eBooks.4 indexed citations
12.
Armour, John, et al.. (2009). Law and Financial Development: What We Are Learning from Time-Series Evidence. Brigham Young University law review. 2009(6). 1435–1500.32 indexed citations
13.
Kraakman, Reinier, John Armour, & Henry Hansmann. (2009). Agency Problems, Legal Strategies, and Enforcement. Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University).22 indexed citations
Armour, John & David A. Skeel. (2007). Who Writes the Rules for Hostile Takeovers, and Why? The Peculiar Divergence of US and UK Takeover Regulation. The Georgetown law journal. 95(6).62 indexed citations
16.
Armour, John & David A. Skeel. (2007). The Divergence of U.S. and UK Takeover Regulation. SSRN Electronic Journal.3 indexed citations
17.
Armour, John, et al.. (2005). Reforming the governance of corporate rescue: The Enterprise Act 2002: The Enterprise Act 2002. 28.2 indexed citations
18.
Armour, John, et al.. (2004). REFORMING THE GOVERNANCE OF CORPORATE RESCUE: THE ENTERPRISE ACT 2002. RePEc: Research Papers in Economics.6 indexed citations
19.
Armour, John. (2002). Law, Innovation and Finance: A Review. RePEc: Research Papers in Economics.
20.
Armour, John. (2001). The Law and Economics of Corporate Insolvency: A Review. RePEc: Research Papers in Economics.17 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.