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.
Benchmarking with DEA, SFA, and R
2010530 citationsPeter Bogetoft, Lars Ottoprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
Countries citing papers authored by Peter Bogetoft
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Peter Bogetoft'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 Peter Bogetoft with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Peter Bogetoft more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Peter Bogetoft. 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 Peter Bogetoft. The network helps show where Peter Bogetoft may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Peter Bogetoft
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Peter Bogetoft.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Peter Bogetoft 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 Peter Bogetoft. Peter Bogetoft is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Bogetoft, Peter, et al.. (2017). Benefit of Doubt Approach to Case Weighting: Improving and Simplifying the Assessment of Workload in Courts.2 indexed citations
8.
Bogetoft, Peter, Eskil Heinesen, & Torben Tranæs. (2014). The efficiency of educational production: A comparison of Denmark with other OECD countries. RePEc: Research Papers in Economics.
9.
Bogetoft, Peter, et al.. (2014). Effektive skoler: Benchmarking af danske ungdomsuddannelsesinstitutioner med særligt fokus på gymnasierne. 131–156.1 indexed citations
10.
Bogetoft, Peter, et al.. (2012). Multi-dimensional auctions under information asymmetry for costs and qualities. Munich Personal RePEc Archive (Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich).
11.
Bogetoft, Peter & Lars Otto. (2011). Benchmarking with DEA, SFA, and R. Yunchou yu guanli.9 indexed citations
Bogetoft, Peter, et al.. (2008). Reallocating Sugar Beet Contracts: Can Sugar Production Survive in Denmark?. SSRN Electronic Journal.1 indexed citations
Agrell, Per J., et al.. (2007). Development of benchmarking models for German electricity and gas distribution.19 indexed citations
16.
Bogetoft, Peter. (2005). An information economic rationale for cooperatives. SSRN Electronic Journal.
17.
Agrell, Per J., et al.. (2005). Efficiency evaluation with convex pairs. RePEc: Research Papers in Economics. 7. 211–237.9 indexed citations
18.
Bogetoft, Peter, et al.. (2003). Influence Costs In Heterogeneous Cooperatives: A Formal Model Of Sales Distortion. RePEc: Research Papers in Economics.2 indexed citations
19.
Agrell, Per J., et al.. (2002). Should Regulators Use DEA. Journal of Pediatric Surgery. 35(4). 601–4.1 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.