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.
Consumer Perceptions of Interpersonal Equity and Satisfaction in Transactions: A Field Survey Approach
19891.4k citationsRichard L. Oliver, John E. SwanJournal of Marketingprofile →
SERVQUAL revisited: a critical review of service quality
This map shows the geographic impact of John E. Swan'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 E. Swan with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites John E. Swan more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by John E. Swan. 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 E. Swan. The network helps show where John E. Swan may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of John E. Swan
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of John E. Swan.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of John E. Swan 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 E. Swan. John E. Swan is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Swan, John E., et al.. (2013). Utilization of Sales Management Knowledge and Identification of Contributors: An Analysis of JPSSM 1980–1990. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management.2 indexed citations
3.
Trawick, I. Fredrick, John E. Swan, & David R. Rink. (2013). Industrial Buyer Evaluation of the Ethics of Salesperson Gift Giving; Value of the Gift and Customer vs. Prospect Status. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management.9 indexed citations
Swan, John E., et al.. (2013). Improving the Public Acceptance of Sales People Through Professionalization. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management.4 indexed citations
7.
Martin, Warren S. & John E. Swan. (2004). Premium Price Blues: Customers Voicing Price Complaints, Buying and Not Buying. The Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction & Complaining Behavior. 17. 142.1 indexed citations
8.
Swan, John E., Warren S. Martin, & I. Fredrick Trawick. (2003). Compensatory Satisfaction: An Ethnography of Avoiding Disappointment and Producing Satisfaction in Birding. The Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction & Complaining Behavior. 16. 157.2 indexed citations
Swan, John E. & Richard L. Oliver. (1989). Postpurchase communications by consumers. Journal of Retailing. 65(4). 516–534.384 indexed citations
13.
Oliver, Richard L. & John E. Swan. (1989). Consumer Perceptions of Interpersonal Equity and Satisfaction in Transactions: A Field Survey Approach. Journal of Marketing. 53(2). 21–35.681 indexed citations breakdown →
Swan, John E. & Warren S. Martin. (1981). Testing Comparison Level and Predictive Expectations Models of Satisfaction. ACR North American Advances.24 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.