This map shows the geographic impact of Peter Clemoes'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 Clemoes with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Peter Clemoes more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Peter Clemoes. 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 Clemoes. The network helps show where Peter Clemoes may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Peter Clemoes
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Peter Clemoes.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Peter Clemoes 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 Clemoes. Peter Clemoes is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
All Works
20 of 20 papers shown
1.
Clemoes, Peter, Michael Lapidge, & Helmut Gneuss. (2010). Learning and Literature in Anglo-Saxon England: Studies Presented to Peter Clemoes on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Medical Entomology and Zoology.39 indexed citations
2.
Clemoes, Peter. (1997). Ælfric's Catholic homilies : the first series : text. Oxford University Press eBooks.45 indexed citations
Clemoes, Peter. (1952). Liturgical influence on punctuation in Late Old English and Early Middle English manuscripts. Medical Entomology and Zoology.6 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.