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.
Arrhythmia recognition and classification using combined linear and nonlinear features of ECG signals
This map shows the geographic impact of Naomie Salim'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 Naomie Salim with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Naomie Salim more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Naomie Salim. 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 Naomie Salim. The network helps show where Naomie Salim may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Naomie Salim
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Naomie Salim.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Naomie Salim 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 Naomie Salim. Naomie Salim is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Alias, Rose Alinda, et al.. (2019). Research Collaborator, how do i find thee?. Journal of the Association for Information Systems. 108.1 indexed citations
6.
Salim, Naomie, et al.. (2016). DATABASE INTEGRATION: IMPORTANCE AND APPROACHES.2 indexed citations
7.
Heydari, Atefeh, et al.. (2015). Incorporating author's activeness in online discussion in thread retrieval model. ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences. 10(2). 473–479.2 indexed citations
8.
Saleem, Farrukh, et al.. (2015). BUILDING FRAMEWORK FOR ICT INVESTMENTS EVALUATION: VALUE ON INVESTMENT PERSPECTIVE. ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences. 10(3). 1074–1079.5 indexed citations
9.
Salim, Naomie, et al.. (2014). Opinion mining: Approaches, resources and challenges. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology. 63(2). 343–349.2 indexed citations
10.
Salim, Naomie, et al.. (2014). Systematic literature review (SLR) automation: a systematic literature review. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology. 59(3). 661–672.8 indexed citations
11.
Salim, Naomie, et al.. (2014). Mining FAQ from forum threads: theoretical framework. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology. 63(1). 39–50.1 indexed citations
12.
Salim, Naomie, et al.. (2013). Opinion analysis for twitter and arabic tweets: a systematic literature review. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology. 56(3). 338–348.15 indexed citations
Salim, Naomie, et al.. (2012). QUALITY-BIASED RETRIEVAL IN ONLINE FORUMS. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology. 38(1). 55–62.2 indexed citations
Osman, Ahmed Hamza, et al.. (2011). CONCEPTUAL SIMILARITY AND GRAPH-BASED METHOD FOR PLAGIARISM DETECTION. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology. 32(2). 135–145.13 indexed citations
18.
Salim, Naomie, et al.. (2011). Towards data warehouse quality through integrated requirements analysis. 259–264.5 indexed citations
19.
Salim, Naomie, et al.. (2009). METADATA MANAGEMENT MODEL FOR RELATIONAL DATABASE PUBLICATION ON GRID: AN ONTOLOGY BASED FRAMEWORK.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.