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.
eulerAPE: Drawing Area-Proportional 3-Venn Diagrams Using Ellipses
2014397 citationsLuana Micallef, Peter RodgersPLoS ONEprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
This map shows the geographic impact of Peter Rodgers'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 Rodgers with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Peter Rodgers more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Peter Rodgers. 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 Rodgers. The network helps show where Peter Rodgers may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Peter Rodgers
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Peter Rodgers.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Peter Rodgers 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 Rodgers. Peter Rodgers is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Alsallakh, Bilal, Luana Micallef, Wolfgang Aigner, et al.. (2015). The State‐of‐the‐Art of Set Visualization. Computer Graphics Forum. 35(1). 234–260.66 indexed citations
6.
Rodgers, Peter, et al.. (2013). Multi-level Visualization of Concurrent and Distributed Computation in Erlang. Kent Academic Repository (University of Kent). 156–161.1 indexed citations
Blake, Andrew, Gem Stapleton, Peter Rodgers, Liz Cheek, & John Howse. (2012). Does the Orientation of an Euler Diagram Affect User Comprehension. University of Brighton Repository (University of Brighton). 185–190.11 indexed citations
9.
Stapleton, Gem, Aidan Delaney, Peter Rodgers, & Beryl Plimmer. (2011). Recognising sketches of Euler diagrams augmented with graphs. University of Brighton Repository (University of Brighton). 279–284.5 indexed citations
Stapleton, Gem, Andrew Fish, & Peter Rodgers. (2008). Abstract Euler Diagram Isomorphism. Kent Academic Repository (University of Kent). 310–317.3 indexed citations
14.
Mathew, Sony, et al.. (2006). A Methodology for Assessing the Remaining Life of Electronic Products. International Journal of Performability Engineering. 2(4). 383.13 indexed citations
15.
Rodgers, Peter, et al.. (2006). Methods for Binning and Density Estimation of Load Parameters for Prognostic Health Monitoring. International Journal of Performability Engineering. 2(2). 149.4 indexed citations
16.
Thompson, Simon, et al.. (2005). Tableaux for Diagrammatic Reasoning. Kent Academic Repository (University of Kent). 279–286.5 indexed citations
Eveloy, Valérie & Peter Rodgers. (2002). Board-mounted electronic component transient thermal behavior: CFD prediction versus measurement. 25(1). 27–50.2 indexed citations
20.
Rodgers, Peter. (2000). An XML Specification for Grrr Programs. Kent Academic Repository (University of Kent).
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.