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.
This map shows the geographic impact of John Long'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 Long with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites John Long more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by John Long. 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 Long. The network helps show where John Long may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of John Long
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of John Long.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of John Long 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 Long. John Long is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Long, John, et al.. (1999). Successful Case Study and Partial Validation of MUSE, a Structured Method for Usability Engineering.. UCL Discovery (University College London). 399–407.3 indexed citations
6.
Dowell, J.D. & John Long. (1998). Conception of the cognitive engineering design problem. UCL Discovery (University College London).36 indexed citations
7.
Long, John. (1997). Twenty-Five Years of HCI: Growth Without Progress?. UCL Discovery (University College London). 197–200.1 indexed citations
8.
Long, John. (1997). Integrating Human Factors with Software Engineering for Human-Computer Interaction.. UCL Discovery (University College London). 509–512.3 indexed citations
9.
Long, John, et al.. (1996). A preliminary model of the planning and control of the combined response to disaster. UCL Discovery (University College London).2 indexed citations
10.
Long, John, et al.. (1995). Applying a Structured Method for Usability Engineering to Domestic Energy Management User Requirements: A Successful Case-study.. UCL Discovery (University College London). 367–385.1 indexed citations
Long, John, et al.. (1993). Structured Notations for Human Factors Specification of Interactive Systems.. UCL Discovery (University College London). 325–331.2 indexed citations
13.
Lim, K. Y., et al.. (1990). Integrating human factors with structured analysis and design methods: An enhanced conception of the extended Jackson system development method. UCL Discovery (University College London). 225–230.9 indexed citations
14.
Monk, Andrew, John S. Carroll, Michael D. Harrison, John Long, & Richard M. Young. (1990). New approaches to theory in HCI: How should we judge their acceptability?. UCL Discovery (University College London). 1055–1058.4 indexed citations
15.
Long, John, et al.. (1990). Towards an evaluation planning aid: A feasibility study in modelling evaluation practice using a blackboard framework. UCL Discovery (University College London). 407–413.2 indexed citations
16.
Long, John & Andy Whitefield. (1989). Cognitive Ergonomics and Human Computer Interaction. Cambridge University Press eBooks.52 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.