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.
Growing Artificial Societies: Social Science from the Bottom Up
This map shows the geographic impact of John Duffy'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 Duffy with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites John Duffy more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by John Duffy. 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 Duffy. The network helps show where John Duffy may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of John Duffy
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of John Duffy.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of John Duffy 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 Duffy. John Duffy is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Duffy, John. (2010). The Federal Circuit in the Shadow of the Solicitor General. SSRN Electronic Journal.1 indexed citations
9.
Duffy, John. (2009). Rules and Standards on the Forefront of Patentability. eYLS (Yale Law School). 51(2). 609.4 indexed citations
10.
Abrams, David, John Duffy, Josh Lerner, et al.. (2009). DID TRIPS SPUR INNOVATION? AN ANALYSIS OF PATENT DURATION AND INCENTIVES TO INNOVATE. University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 157(6). 1613.3 indexed citations
11.
Duffy, John. (2007). Inventing Invention: A Case Study of Legal Innovation. Texas law review. 86(1). 1.11 indexed citations
12.
Duffy, John, et al.. (2006). Rethinking Patent Law's Uniformity Principle. Northwestern University law review. 101(4). 1619.15 indexed citations
13.
Lemley, Mark A. & John Duffy. (2005). Property, Intellectual Property, and Free Riding/Comment/Reply. Texas law review. 83(4). 1031.25 indexed citations
14.
Duffy, John. (2004). Philologica Byzantina. SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología.
15.
Duffy, John. (2004). Rethinking the Prospect Theory of Patents. The University of Chicago Law Review. 71(2). 439–510.19 indexed citations
16.
Duffy, John. (2004). The Marginal Cost Controversy in Intellectual Property. The University of Chicago Law Review. 71(1). 37–56.3 indexed citations
17.
Duffy, John. (2003). CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA. 29(2).41 indexed citations
18.
Duffy, John. (1998). Administrative Common Law in Judicial Review. Texas law review. 77(1). 113.8 indexed citations
19.
Duffy, John. (1987). The Miracles of Cyrus and John: New Old Readings from the Manuscript. Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign). 55(25). 1867–71.1 indexed citations
20.
Duffy, John. (1980). The songs and motets of Alfonso Ferrabosco, the Younger (1575-1628).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.