This map shows the geographic impact of John Flood'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 Flood with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites John Flood more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by John Flood. 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 Flood. The network helps show where John Flood may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of John Flood
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of John Flood.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of John Flood 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 Flood. John Flood is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Flood, John, et al.. (2018). Professions and Expertise: How Machine Learning and Blockchain Are Redesigning the Landscape of Professional Knowledge and Organization. University of Miami law review. 73(2). 443–482.4 indexed citations
3.
Mountford‐Zimdars, Anna & John Flood. (2016). The Importance of University Attended and Degree Subject: A Comparison of the Background of Lawyers in England and Germany.. Griffith Research Online (Griffith University, Queensland, Australia). 49(1). 26–49.1 indexed citations
4.
Flood, John. (2015). Global Challenges for Legal Education: Competing for the World's Law Students. Griffith Research Online (Griffith University, Queensland, Australia).1 indexed citations
5.
Flood, John. (2013). Institutional Bridging: How Large Law Firms Engage in Globalization. Boston College law review. 54(3). 1087–1121.3 indexed citations
6.
Flood, John, et al.. (2012). Becoming a Cosmopolitan Lawyer. Fordham law review. 80(6). 2513.2 indexed citations
7.
Flood, John. (2012). Transnational lawyering: clients, ethics and regulation. Griffith Research Online (Griffith University, Queensland, Australia). 176–196.5 indexed citations
8.
Flood, John. (2009). Ambiguous Allegiances in the Lawyer-Client Relationship: The Case of Bankers and Lawyers. SSRN Electronic Journal.5 indexed citations
9.
Flood, John. (2008). Will There Be Fallout from Clementi? The Global Repercussions for the Legal Profession after the UK Legal Services Act 2007. WestminsterResearch (University of Westminster). 2012(2). 537.8 indexed citations
10.
Flood, John. (2007). Lawyers as sanctifiers of value creation. WestminsterResearch (University of Westminster).7 indexed citations
11.
Flood, John. (2007). The Cultures of Globalization: Professional Restructuring for the International Market. SSRN Electronic Journal.18 indexed citations
12.
Flood, John, et al.. (2007). Lawyers, Law Firms and the Stabilization of Transnational Business. Northwestern journal of international law & business. 28(3). 489.4 indexed citations
13.
Flood, John. (2007). Lawyers as Sanctifiers: The Role of Elite Law Firms in International Business Transactions. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies.8 indexed citations
14.
Flood, John. (2006). Professionals Organizing Professionals: Comparing the Logic of US and UK Law Practice. SSRN Electronic Journal.3 indexed citations
15.
Flood, John, et al.. (2006). Postmodern Professions: The Fragmentation of Legal Education. SSRN Electronic Journal.1 indexed citations
16.
Flood, John, et al.. (2006). What's wrong with legal aid?: Lessons from outside the UK. SSRN Electronic Journal.3 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.