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.
Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials.
19981.3k citationsDavey, Jones et al.Health Technology Assessmentprofile →
ALSPAC–The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children
20011.2k citationsJean Golding, Jones et al.Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiologyprofile →
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 Jones'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 Jones with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Jones more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Jones. 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 Jones. The network helps show where Jones may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Jones
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Jones.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Jones 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 Jones. Jones 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.
Williamson, Jones, Williams, et al.. (2017). Extramural vascular invasion and response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer: influence of the CpG island methylator phenotype. 209–217.5 indexed citations
Jones, et al.. (2009). Skin Impedance at Acupuncture Point Dingchuan in Subjects with and without Asthma. PolyU Institutional Research Archive (Hong Kong Polytechnic University). 481–484.4 indexed citations
Golding, Jean, et al.. (2001). ALSPAC–The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology. 15(1). 74–87.1236 indexed citations breakdown →
6.
Jones, et al.. (2000). Milk folate-binding protein; ligand-binding properties and polymerization properties. Australian Journal of Dairy Technology. 55(2). 97–97.1 indexed citations
7.
Jones. (1999). Regarding management of VIN 3. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer. 9(3). 264–264.1 indexed citations
Jones. (1998). Management of VIN 3. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer. 8(6). 509–510.2 indexed citations
12.
Davey, et al.. (1998). Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials.. Health Technology Assessment. 2(14).1313 indexed citations breakdown →
13.
Birch, Hartley, Prosser Prosser, et al.. (1994). Prevalence and diversity of constitutional mutations in the p53 gene among 21 Li-Fraumeni families. Cancer Research.354 indexed citations
Jones, et al.. (1967). Contribution of venous obstruction to experimentally induced Scheuermann's disease.. PubMed. 36(2). 91–100.1 indexed citations
19.
Jones, et al.. (1966). Isobaric spinal anesthesia for anorectal surgery.. PubMed. 44(6). 742–5.1 indexed citations
20.
Jones, et al.. (1964). CINERADIOGRAPHIC RECORDING OF TRACTION OF THE CERVICAL SPINE.. PubMed. 45. 403–6.6 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.