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.
The Turn: Integration of Information Seeking and Retrieval in Context
Countries citing papers authored by Peter Ingwersen
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Peter Ingwersen'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 Ingwersen with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Peter Ingwersen more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Peter Ingwersen. 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 Ingwersen. The network helps show where Peter Ingwersen may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Peter Ingwersen
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Peter Ingwersen.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Peter Ingwersen 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 Ingwersen. Peter Ingwersen 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.
Mañana-Rodríguez, Jorge, Tim Engels, Peter Ingwersen, et al.. (2015). The Evaluation of Scholarly Books as a Research Output. Current Developments in Europe.. Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen).5 indexed citations
2.
Kurland, Oren, Donald Metzler, Christina Lioma, Birger Larsen, & Peter Ingwersen. (2013). Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on the Theory of Information Retrieval.1 indexed citations
3.
Casado, Elías Sanz, et al.. (2013). Scientific production and international collaboration on Solar Energy in Spain and Germany (1995-2009). Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen).
4.
Ingwersen, Peter, et al.. (2013). Contribution and influence of proceedings papers to citation impact in seven conference and journal-driven sub-fields of energy research 2005-11. Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen).1 indexed citations
5.
Järvelin, Kalervo, Peter Ingwersen, & Timo Niemi. (2012). Informetrics through Advanced Data Management. Complex Object Restructuring, Data Aggregation and Transitive Computation. Tampere University Institutional Repository (Tampere University).
6.
Ingwersen, Peter & Peiling Wang. (2012). Relationship between Usefulness Assessments and Perceptions of Work Task Complexity and Search Topic Specificity: An Exploratory Study. Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen).3 indexed citations
7.
Jørgensen, Henrik L., Birger Larsen, Peter Ingwersen, & Jens F. Rehfeld. (2008). [Research activity in clinical biochemistry].. PubMed. 170(36). 2798–802.1 indexed citations
8.
Hyldegård, Jette Seiden & Peter Ingwersen. (2007). Task complexity and information behaviour in group based problem solving.. Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen). 12.8 indexed citations
9.
Ingwersen, Peter, et al.. (2007). ON THE HOLISTIC COGNITIVE THEORY FOR INFORMATION RETRIEVAL Drifting Outside the Border of the Laboratory Framework. 135–147.3 indexed citations
10.
Lund, Haakon, et al.. (2005). Capturing contexts for web filtering in the humanities. KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology). 48–50.1 indexed citations
11.
Ingwersen, Peter & Kalervo Järvelin. (2005). The Turn: Integration of Information Seeking and Retrieval in Context (The Information Retrieval Series). Springer eBooks. 67(13). 50–50.213 indexed citations
Järvelin, Kalervo & Peter Ingwersen. (2004). Information seeking research needs extension towards tasks and technology. SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología.110 indexed citations
14.
Belkin, Nicholas J., et al.. (1999). SIGIR 2000 : proceedings of the 23rd Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in information Retrieval : ACM SIGIR July 24-28, 2000, Athens, Greece. Association for Computing Machinery eBooks.15 indexed citations
15.
Ingwersen, Peter. (1996). The Cognitive Framework for Information Retrieval: A Paradigmatic Perspective.. Ingénierie des systèmes d information. 65–78.2 indexed citations
16.
Ingwersen, Peter. (1994). The Cognitive Perspective in Information Retrieval.. Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen). 19(2). 25–32.2 indexed citations
Ingwersen, Peter & Irene Wormell. (1989). Modern indexing and retrieval techniques matching different types of information needs. Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen).4 indexed citations
19.
Ingwersen, Peter & Annelise Mark Pejtersen. (1986). User requirements—empirical research and information systems design. 111–124.6 indexed citations
20.
Ingwersen, Peter, et al.. (1986). Information technology and information use: towards a unified view of information and information technology.14 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.