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.
On the "remembrance of things past": A longitudinal evaluation of the retrospective method.
1994507 citationsJohn Langley, Phil A. Silva et al.profile →
Author Peers
Peers are selected by citation overlap in the author's most active subfields.
citations ·
hero ref
This map shows the geographic impact of John Langley'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 Langley with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites John Langley more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by John Langley. 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 Langley. The network helps show where John Langley may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of John Langley
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of John Langley.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of John Langley 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 Langley. John Langley is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Langley, John, Rebbecca Lilley, Ari Samaranayaka, & Sarah Derrett. (2014). Work status and disability trajectories over 12 months after injury among workers in New Zealand.. PubMed. 127(1390). 53–60.12 indexed citations
Derrett, Sarah, et al.. (2012). Injury to Pacific people in New Zealand: Pre-injury characteristics and early health outcomes - results from a cohort study. 19(2). 17–17.3 indexed citations
Begg, Dorothy, et al.. (2008). Parent and adolescent risky driving behaviours: New Zealand Drivers Study. SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología. 12(1). 52–59.4 indexed citations
12.
Kypri, Kypros, John B. Saunders, & John Langley. (2006). Electronic screening and brief intervention (E-SBI) for hazardous drinking: Results of three randomized controlled trials. Alcoholism Clinical and Experimental Research. 30.1 indexed citations
13.
Cryer, Colin & John Langley. (2000). Indicators for injury surveillance. Kent Academic Repository (University of Kent). 7(1). 5.12 indexed citations
14.
Begg, Dorothy, Jonathan Alsop, & John Langley. (2000). THE IMPACT OF GRADUATED DRIVER LICENSING RESTRICTIONS ON YOUNG DRIVER CRASHES IN NEW ZEALAND. 2000.6 indexed citations
15.
Alsop, Jonathan & John Langley. (2000). Dying to go on holiday. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health. 24(6). 607–609.3 indexed citations
16.
Norton, Robyn, et al.. (1994). Injury surveillance in public hospital emergency departments.. PubMed. 107(979). 222–3.11 indexed citations
17.
Phillips, David, John Langley, & Stephen W. Marshall. (1993). Injury: the medical and related costs in New Zealand 1990.. PubMed. 106(957). 215–7.11 indexed citations
18.
Marshall, Stephen W., John Langley, & Dorothy Begg. (1993). Motorcycle fatalities in New Zealand: a database linkage study. Road and transport research. 2(4). 46–55.1 indexed citations
Langley, John, Phil A. Silva, & Sean Williams. (1980). Motor coordination and childhood accidents. Journal of Safety Research. 12(4). 175–178.8 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.