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.
Authoritarian regime types revisited: updated data in comparative perspective
2013182 citationsMichael Wahman, Jan Teorell et al.Contemporary Politicsprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
Countries citing papers authored by Michael Wahman
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Michael Wahman'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 Wahman with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Michael Wahman more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Michael Wahman. 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 Wahman. The network helps show where Michael Wahman may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Michael Wahman
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Michael Wahman.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Michael Wahman 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 Wahman. Michael Wahman is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Soest, Christian von & Michael Wahman. (2014). Not all dictators are equal. Journal of Peace Research. 52(1). 17–31.32 indexed citations
9.
Wahman, Michael, et al.. (2014). The Persistent and Increasing Problem of Unequal Representation in Malawi- A Statistical Argument for Redistricting. Lund University Publications (Lund University).1 indexed citations
10.
Soest, Christian von & Michael Wahman. (2014). The Underestimated Effect of Democratic Sanctions. 8.
11.
Wahman, Michael & Catherine Boone. (2013). Gaming the System- Unequal Representation and Rural Bias in African Single Member District Elections. SSRN Electronic Journal.1 indexed citations
12.
Wahman, Michael & Catherine Boone. (2013). Rural Bias in African Electoral Systems: Unequal Representation in Single Member District Elections. SSRN Electronic Journal.2 indexed citations
13.
Soest, Christian von & Michael Wahman. (2013). Are All Dictators Equal? The Selective Targeting of Democratic Sanctions against Authoritarian Regimes. Econstor (Econstor). 230.2 indexed citations
14.
Wahman, Michael, Jan Teorell, & Axel Hadenius. (2013). Authoritarian regime types revisited: updated data in comparative perspective. Contemporary Politics. 19(1). 19–34.182 indexed citations breakdown →
15.
Wahman, Michael. (2013). Att studera, mäta och förklara auktoritär motståndskraft. Statsvetenskaplig tidskrift. 115(4).2 indexed citations
Wahman, Michael. (2012). Uniting Against Autocrats: Opposition Coordination, Turnovers and Democratization by Elections. Lund University Publications (Lund University).3 indexed citations
Wahman, Michael. (2009). Mapping the Unknown Terrain: Party Policy Mapping in Electoral Authoritarian Regimes. Lund University Publications (Lund University).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.