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 Riedl'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 Riedl with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites John Riedl more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by John Riedl. 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 Riedl. The network helps show where John Riedl may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of John Riedl
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of John Riedl.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of John Riedl 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 Riedl. John Riedl 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.
Poltrock, Steven, Carla Simone, Jonathan Grudin, Gloria Mark, & John Riedl. (2012). Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work Companion.11 indexed citations
Konstan, Joseph A., et al.. (2006). Lessons on applying automated recommender systems to information-seeking tasks. National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 1630–1633.23 indexed citations
7.
McNee, Sean M., John Riedl, & Joseph A. Konstan. (2006). Accurate is not always good: How Accuracy Metrics have hurt Recommender Systems.39 indexed citations
McNee, Sean M., et al.. (2003). Confidence Displays and Training in Recommender Systems.. International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction.39 indexed citations
10.
Cosley, Dan, Shyong K. Lam, István Albert, Joseph A. Konstan, & John Riedl. (2003). Is seeing believing?.34 indexed citations
Riedl, John & Badrul Sarwar. (2001). Sparsity, scalability, and distribution in recommender systems. 168–168.46 indexed citations
13.
Huai-hsin, Ed, John Riedl, Elizabeth Shoop, & Phillip J. Barry. (2000). A Novel Visualization Method for Biological Sequence Similarity Reports.1 indexed citations
14.
Riedl, John & Ed Huai-hsin. (1999). A framework for information visualization spreadsheets.8 indexed citations
15.
Miller, Brad, John Riedl, & Joseph A. Konstan. (1997). Experiences with GroupLens: marking usenet useful again. USENIX Annual Technical Conference. 17–17.33 indexed citations
Johnson, Donald W., David J. Lilja, & John Riedl. (1995). A Circulating Active Barrier Synchronization Mechanism.. Proceedings of the International Conference on Parallel Processing. 202–209.4 indexed citations
18.
Riedl, John, et al.. (1994). TREC-3 : experience with conceptual relations in information retrieval. Text REtrieval Conference. 333–352.4 indexed citations
Bhargava, Bharat, John Dilley, & John Riedl. (1986). RAID. 1–7.1 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.