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.
Framing Design Thinking: The Concept in Idea and Enactment
2016353 citationsLisa Carlgren, Ingo Rauth et al.Creativity and Innovation Managementprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
Countries citing papers authored by Maria Elmquist
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Maria Elmquist'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 Maria Elmquist with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Maria Elmquist more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Maria Elmquist. 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 Maria Elmquist. The network helps show where Maria Elmquist may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Maria Elmquist
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Maria Elmquist.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Maria Elmquist 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 Maria Elmquist. Maria Elmquist is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Carlgren, Lisa, Ingo Rauth, & Maria Elmquist. (2016). Framing Design Thinking: The Concept in Idea and Enactment. Creativity and Innovation Management. 25(1). 38–57.353 indexed citations breakdown →
Carlgren, Lisa, Maria Elmquist, & Ingo Rauth. (2013). Perceptions of the value of Design Thinking in innovation in large firms. Chalmers Research (Chalmers University of Technology).2 indexed citations
11.
Carlgren, Lisa, Maria Elmquist, & Ingo Rauth. (2012). Implementing Design Thinking in Large Organizations. Chalmers Research (Chalmers University of Technology).2 indexed citations
Fredberg, Tobias, Maria Elmquist, Susanne Ollila, & Anna Yström. (2011). Role Confusion in Open Innovation Intermediary Arenas. Chalmers Publication Library (Chalmers University of Technology).2 indexed citations
14.
Yström, Anna, Susanne Ollila, Tobias Fredberg, & Maria Elmquist. (2010). Communities of Practice for Open Innovation - Enabling Organizational Creativity?. Chalmers Publication Library (Chalmers University of Technology).5 indexed citations
Elmquist, Maria & Blanche Segrestin. (2009). The challenges of managing open innovation in highly innovative fields: exploring the use of the KCP method. Chalmers Publication Library (Chalmers University of Technology).2 indexed citations
Elmquist, Maria & Blanche Segrestin. (2008). Organizing open innovation in practice: a case study of an environmental innovation project in the automotive industry. Chalmers Research (Chalmers University of Technology).1 indexed citations
20.
Adler, Niclas, et al.. (2007). Loud killers and already-invented-here: managing change in professional organizations. Chalmers Research (Chalmers University of Technology).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.