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.
Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development.
19981.3k citationsMurphy Murphy, Jed Black et al.Health Technology Assessmentprofile →
Qualitative research methods in health technology assessment: a review of the literature.
1998748 citationsMurphy Murphy, Robert Dingwall et al.Health Technology Assessmentprofile →
Context-based vision system for place and object recognition
2003584 citationsMurphy Murphy, Freeman et al.DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)profile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
This map shows the geographic impact of Murphy Murphy'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 Murphy Murphy with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Murphy Murphy more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Murphy Murphy. 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 Murphy Murphy. The network helps show where Murphy Murphy may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Murphy Murphy
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Murphy Murphy.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Murphy Murphy 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 Murphy Murphy. Murphy Murphy is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Brent, et al.. (2016). Determination of volumetric changes at an underground stone mine： a photogrammetry case study. 矿业科学技术学报：英文版. 149–154.1 indexed citations
4.
Mohamed, et al.. (2016). Analysis of the current rib support practices and techniques in U.S. coal mines. 矿业科学技术学报：英文版. 77–87.9 indexed citations
5.
Murphy, Murphy, et al.. (2013). Origins of the supercontinent cycle. 4(4). 439–448.1 indexed citations
Murphy, Murphy, et al.. (2003). Context-based vision system for place and object recognition. DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology). 273–280 vol.1.584 indexed citations breakdown →
Murphy, Murphy, et al.. (1998). Qualitative research methods in health technology assessment: a review of the literature.. Health Technology Assessment. 2(16).748 indexed citations breakdown →
Murphy, Murphy, et al.. (1998). Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development.. Health Technology Assessment. 2(3).1339 indexed citations breakdown →
16.
Murphy, Murphy, et al.. (1997). Seeing NAFTA through Three Lenses. 23. 73.1 indexed citations
17.
Fletcher, Simon, et al.. (1995). Managing risk in software systems. University of North Texas Digital Library (University of North Texas).6 indexed citations
18.
Murphy, Murphy. (1986). Technical Analysis of the Futures Markets: A Comprehensive Guide to Trading Methods and Applications.41 indexed citations
Murphy, Murphy, et al.. (1982). A feasibility study of computer aided diagnosis in appendicitis.. PubMed. 155(5). 471–3.60 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.