This map shows the geographic impact of Michael Ayers'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 Michael Ayers with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Michael Ayers more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Michael Ayers. 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 Michael Ayers. The network helps show where Michael Ayers may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Michael Ayers
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Michael Ayers.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Michael Ayers 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 Michael Ayers. Michael Ayers is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Ayers, Michael, Robert J. Fogelin, Don Garrett, et al.. (2000). The empiricists : critical essays on Locke, Berkeley, and Hume. Medical Entomology and Zoology. 99(23). 1092–4.5 indexed citations
9.
Gärber, Daniel & Michael Ayers. (1999). The Cambridge History of 17th Century Philosophy. Philosophy. 74(289).2 indexed citations
10.
Gärber, Daniel & Michael Ayers. (1998). The Cambridge History of Seventeenth-Century Philosophy, Volume 1.1 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.