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.
An Introduction to ‘Benefit of the Doubt’ Composite Indicators
2006518 citationsLaurens Cherchye, Willem Moesen et al.profile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
Countries citing papers authored by Laurens Cherchye
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Laurens Cherchye'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 Laurens Cherchye with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Laurens Cherchye more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by Laurens Cherchye
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Laurens Cherchye. 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 Laurens Cherchye. The network helps show where Laurens Cherchye may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Laurens Cherchye
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Laurens Cherchye.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Laurens Cherchye 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 Laurens Cherchye. Laurens Cherchye is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Cherchye, Laurens, Koen Decancq, André Decoster, et al.. (2019). En faut-il peu pour être heureux ? Conditions de vie, bonheur et bien-être en Belgique. Dépôt institutionnel de l'Université libre de Bruxelles (Université Libre de Bruxelles).
Cherchye, Laurens, Willem Moesen, Nicky Rogge, & Tom Van Puyenbroeck. (2011). Constructing a knowledge economy composite indicator with imprecise data: a proposal. Expert Systems with Applications. 10940–10949.1 indexed citations
Rock, Bram De, Laurens Cherchye, & Frédéric Vermeulen. (2008). Analyzing Cost Efficient Production Behavior Under Economies of Scope : A Nonparametric Methodology. ULB Institutional Repository.1 indexed citations
Cherchye, Laurens, Erwin Ooghe, & Tom Van Puyenbroeck. (2007). Robust human development rankings. The Journal of Economic Inequality. 6(4). 287–321.73 indexed citations
15.
Rogge, Nicky, Laurens Cherchye, Wim Moesen, & Tom Van Puyenbroeck. (2006). 'Benefit of the doubt' composite indicators. Lirias (KU Leuven).4 indexed citations
16.
Cherchye, Laurens, Bruno De Borger, & Tom Van Puyenbroeck. (2006). Nonparametric Tests of Optimizing Behavior in Public Service Provision: Methodology and an Application to Local Public Safety. Lirias (KU Leuven). 51(4). 281–308.2 indexed citations
17.
Cherchye, Laurens, et al.. (2006). AN INTRODUCTION TO 'BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT'.10 indexed citations
Cherchye, Laurens & Timo Kuosmanen. (2002). Benchmarking Sustainable Development : A Synthetic Meta-index Approach. Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling. 139–169.43 indexed citations
20.
Cherchye, Laurens & Thierry Post. (2001). Methodological Advances in Dea. RePub (Erasmus University, Rotterdam).2 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.