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.
Why sex and gender matter in implementation research
2016241 citationsCara Tannenbaum, Lorraine Greaves et al.BMC Medical Research Methodologyprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
Countries citing papers authored by Lorraine Greaves
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Lorraine Greaves'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 Lorraine Greaves with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Lorraine Greaves more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by Lorraine Greaves
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Lorraine Greaves. 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 Lorraine Greaves. The network helps show where Lorraine Greaves may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Lorraine Greaves
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Lorraine Greaves.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Lorraine Greaves 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 Lorraine Greaves. Lorraine Greaves is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Tannenbaum, Cara, Lorraine Greaves, & Ian D. Graham. (2016). Why sex and gender matter in implementation research. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 16(1). 145–145.241 indexed citations breakdown →
Bialystok, Lauren, Nancy Poole, & Lorraine Greaves. (2013). Preconception care: call for national guidelines.. Europe PMC (PubMed Central). 59(10). 1037–7.17 indexed citations
10.
Greaves, Lorraine, Nancy Poole, Chizimuzo T.C. Okoli, et al.. (2011). Expecting to Quit: A Best-Practices Review of Smoking Cessation Interventions for Pregnant and Postpartum Girls and Women. UKnowledge (University of Kentucky).33 indexed citations
Greaves, Lorraine & Nancy Poole. (2004). Victimized or Validated? Responses to Substance-Using Pregnant Women. Canadian women's studies. 24(1).33 indexed citations
16.
Devries, Karen & Lorraine Greaves. (2004). Smoking Cessation for Pregnant Women. Canadian Journal of Public Health. 95(4). 278–280.6 indexed citations
17.
Kirby, Sandra, Lorraine Greaves, & Olena Hankivsky. (2002). Women Under the Dome of Silence: Sexual Harassment and Abuse of Female Athletes. Canadian women's studies. 21(3).4 indexed citations
18.
Hankivsky, Olena, et al.. (2000). Therapeutic Consequences of Civil Actions for Damages and Compensation Claims by Victims of Sexual Abuse. Canadian Journal of Women and the Law/Revue Femmes et Droit. 12(1).29 indexed citations
19.
Hankivsky, Olena, et al.. (2000). Therapeutic Consequences of Civil Actions for Damages and Compensation Claims by Victims of Sexual Abuse - An Empirical Study. SSRN Electronic Journal.5 indexed citations
20.
Greaves, Lorraine, et al.. (1988). Advocacy Services: Reassessing the Profile and Needs of Battered Women. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health. 7(2). 39–51.11 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.