John Vines

153 papers receiving 4.2k citations

John Vines's Hit Papers

An Age-Old Problem 2015 · 370 citations
3700+4+8Years since publication100200300

Peers

John Vines
Comparison fields: 5 of 95
  • Human-Computer Interaction 635
  • Demography 529
  • Pharmacy 42
  • Occupational Therapy 61
  • Human Factors and Ergonomics 36
Replace Anne Marie Piper with:
Anne Marie Piper United States
Shaowen Bardzell United States
Neha Kumar United States
Mark Blythe United Kingdom
Jeremy P. Birnholtz United States
Jenny Waycott Australia
Steve Howard Australia
Jed R. Brubaker United States
Oliver L. Haimson United States
Jeffrey Bardzell United States
John Vines relative to Anne Marie Piper United States Anne Marie Piper's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×2×4×6×
Anne Marie Piper · 1×
Citations per year

Countries citing papers authored by John Vines

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of John Vines'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 Vines with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites John Vines more than expected).

Fields of papers citing papers by John Vines

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers produced by John Vines. 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 Vines. The network helps show where John Vines may publish in the future.

Co-authors

The 25 scholars most cited alongside John Vines, linked wherever they have co-authored with each other. Click a name or a connecting line to browse the papers they share.

Border = papers with John Vines Line = papers co-authored together John Vines links everyone, so they are left out of the graph.

All Works

20 of 20 papers shown

Showing the 20 most-cited of 165 papers — load more, or switch the sort, to bring in the rest.

#Work
1
An Age-Old Problem
Hit paper breakdown →
2015370
2
Configuring participation
Hit paper breakdown →
2013317
3 2017190
4 2017162
5 2012127
6 2015121
7 2014106
8 2018103
9 201787
10 201884
11 201883
12 201273
13 201867
14 201259
15 201456
16 201254
17 201354
18 202154
19 201751
20 201350

About John Vines

John Vines is a scholar working on Human-Computer Interaction, Demography, Information Systems, Communication and General Health Professions, having authored 165 papers that have together received 4.3k indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Innovative Human-Technology Interaction (35 papers), Technology Use by Older Adults (14 papers), Blockchain Technology Applications and Security (7 papers), Social Media and Politics (4 papers), Ethics and Social Impacts of AI (3 papers), Mobile Health and mHealth Applications (3 papers), Digital Mental Health Interventions (2 papers) and Digital Accessibility for Disabilities (2 papers). The work is most often cited by research in Human-Computer Interaction (635 citations), Demography (529 citations), Pharmacy (42 citations), Occupational Therapy (61 citations) and Human Factors and Ergonomics (36 citations). John Vines has collaborated with scholars based in United Kingdom, United States and Australia. Frequent co-authors include Patrick L. Olivier, Peter R. Wright, Rachel Elizabeth Clarke, Gary W. Pritchard, Paul Dunphy, Chris Elsden, Katie Brittain, Shaun W. Lawson, Andrew F. Monk and Mark Blythe. Their work appears in journals such as Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, interactions, Big Data & Society, CoDesign and ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction.

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.

Explore authors with similar magnitude of impact