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.
European Stroke Prevention Study 2. Dipyridamole and acetylsalicylic acid in the secondary prevention of stroke
19961.0k citationsLuı́s Cunha, C.D. Forbes et al.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 Peer Smets'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 Smets with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Peer Smets more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Peer Smets. 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 Smets. The network helps show where Peer Smets may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Peer Smets
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Peer Smets.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Peer Smets 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 Smets. Peer Smets is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Bekkers, René, et al.. (2018). Vrijwilligerswerk: Stimulans voor tijdige participatie en integratie : Monitor- en evaluatie onderzoek vrijwilligerswerk door asielzoekers en statushouders die in de opvang verblijven. Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS).2 indexed citations
Smets, Peer, et al.. (2007). Samen ruilen en elkaar ontmoeten: Asielzoekers en autochtonen in een ruilnetwerk in Woudrichem. Digital Academic REpository of VU University Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam). 23(3). 207–224.1 indexed citations
13.
Smets, Peer. (2003). The market does not work for all: and not just because of lacking property titles. Focaal. 41. 193–196.7 indexed citations
14.
Smets, Peer. (2002). Housing Finance and the Urban Poor. Building and Financing Low-Income Housing in Hyderabad, India. UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam).
15.
Elouedi, Zied, Khaled Mohamad Almustafa, & Peer Smets. (2000). Decision Trees Using the Belief Function Theory.6 indexed citations
Smets, Peer. (1998). Marketing as an alternative for toilet schemes with a credit component in Andhra Pradesh. Digital Academic REpository of VU University Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam). 30(3). 52–66.1 indexed citations
18.
Benferhat, Salem, Didier Dubois, Henri Prade, et al.. (1998). A general approach for inconsistency handling and merging information in prioritized knowledge bases. HAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe).3 indexed citations
19.
Smets, Peer. (1995). Poor and in Need for a House in the City! The Government is there to help but who is really helping who?. Digital Academic REpository of VU University Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam). 28(4). 78–93.5 indexed citations
20.
Coulangés, P, et al.. (1978). [Current status of arbovirus research in Madagascar].. Munich Personal RePEc Archive (Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich). 46(1). 113–63.4 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.