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.
Ethnic Exclusionism in European Countries. Public Opposition to Civil Rights for Legal Migrants as a Response to Perceived Ethnic Threat
Countries citing papers authored by Peer Scheepers
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Peer Scheepers'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 Peer Scheepers with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Peer Scheepers more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Peer Scheepers. 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 Peer Scheepers. The network helps show where Peer Scheepers may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Peer Scheepers
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Peer Scheepers.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Peer Scheepers 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 Peer Scheepers. Peer Scheepers is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Coenders, Marcel, Marcel Lubbers, & Peer Scheepers. (2005). Majority populations' attitudes towards migrants and minorities. Report for the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. Report 2: Majorities' attitudes towards minorities in European Union Member States: results from the Standard Eurobaromete. Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University).15 indexed citations
10.
Coenders, Marcel, Marcel Lubbers, & Peer Scheepers. (2004). Weerstand tegen scholen met allochtone kinderen: De etnische tolerantie van hoger opgeleiden op de proef gesteld [Resistance against schools with allochthonous pupils: a test of the ethnic tolerance of the higher educated]. Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS). 79. 124–147.4 indexed citations
11.
Lubbers, Marcel, Mérove Gijsberts, & Peer Scheepers. (2002). Extreme right‐wing voting in Western Europe. European Journal of Political Research. 41(3). 345–378.581 indexed citations breakdown →
12.
Scheepers, Peer & Jacques Janssen. (2001). Informele aspecten van sociaal kapitaal. Mens en Maatschappij. 76(3).
Scheepers, Peer, et al.. (1998). De (on)mogelijkheid om het leeftijds-, periode-, en cohorteffect te bepalen: Een evaluatie aan de hand van het kerkbezoek in Nederland tussen 1970 en 1995. Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS). 45(1). 8–28.2 indexed citations
16.
Scheepers, Peer, et al.. (1996). De dubbelzinnigheid van het politieke rechts-extremisme in Vlaanderen en Nederland. Een confrontatie van de ideologische standpunten van extreem-rechtse partijen en hun kiezers. Amsterdams Sociologisch Tijdschrift. 22(4). 636–654.2 indexed citations
Scheepers, Peer, Rob Eisinga, & Jan Lammers. (1993). Het electoraat van de Centrumpartij/Centrum Democraten in de periode 1982-1992. Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS). 68(4). 362–385.8 indexed citations
19.
Scheepers, Peer & Hans De Witte. (1991). Conformisme, radicalisme en machteloosheid: een onderzoek naar de sociaal-culturele en sociaal-economische opvattingen van arbeiders in Vlaanderen. Radboud Repository (Radboud University). 38. 126–127.16 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.