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.
An Introduction to Comparative Law
1978285 citationsJohn G. Fleming, Konrad Zweigert et al.The American Journal of Comparative Lawprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
Countries citing papers authored by John G. Fleming
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of John G. Fleming'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 G. Fleming with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites John G. Fleming more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by John G. Fleming. 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 G. Fleming. The network helps show where John G. Fleming may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of John G. Fleming
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of John G. Fleming.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of John G. Fleming 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 G. Fleming. John G. Fleming 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.
Fleming, John G., Peter Cane, & Jane Stapleton. (1998). The law of obligations : essays in celebration of John Fleming. Medical Entomology and Zoology.8 indexed citations
2.
Fleming, John G.. (1995). Tort in a Contractual Matrix. Osgoode Hall law journal. 33(4). 661–678.3 indexed citations
3.
Fleming, John G.. (1994). Mass Torts. The American Journal of Comparative Law. 42(3). 507–507.
4.
Pevsner, Nikolaus, John G. Fleming, & Hugh Honour. (1992). Dizionario di architettura. Einaudi eBooks.4 indexed citations
5.
Fleming, John G.. (1989). PROBABILISTIC CAUSATION IN TORT LAW. The Canadian Bar Review. 68(4).6 indexed citations
6.
Fleming, John G., et al.. (1985). Quellen erhohter Gefahr. The American Journal of Comparative Law. 33(1). 127–127.1 indexed citations
7.
Fleming, John G.. (1984). Is There a Future for Tort. 44(5). 5.6 indexed citations
Fleming, John G., Konrad Zweigert, Hein Kötz, & Tony Weir. (1978). An Introduction to Comparative Law. The American Journal of Comparative Law. 26(3). 495–495.285 indexed citations breakdown →
10.
Fleming, John G.. (1977). The law of torts. Medical Entomology and Zoology.66 indexed citations
11.
Kahn-Freund, Otto & John G. Fleming. (1975). Tort liability for work injury.1 indexed citations
12.
Fleming, John G.. (1973). The decline and fall of the law of delict. Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa. 6(2). 259–271.1 indexed citations
Fleming, John G.. (1959). Developments in the English Law of Medical Liability. Vanderbilt law review. 12(3). 633.3 indexed citations
19.
Fleming, John G., et al.. (1958). Ready for the Plaintiff. California Law Review. 46(1). 137–137.
20.
Fleming, John G.. (1953). REMOTENESS AND DUTY: THE CONTROL DEVICES IN LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENCE. The Canadian Bar Review. 31(5).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.