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.
Are Women Less Selfish Than Men?: Evidence From Dictator Experiments
1998670 citationsCatherine C. Eckel, Philip J. Grossmanprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
Countries citing papers authored by Philip J. Grossman
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Philip J. Grossman'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 Philip J. Grossman with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Philip J. Grossman more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by Philip J. Grossman
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Philip J. Grossman. 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 Philip J. Grossman. The network helps show where Philip J. Grossman may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Philip J. Grossman
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Philip J. Grossman.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Philip J. Grossman 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 Philip J. Grossman. Philip J. Grossman is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Grossman, Philip J. & Catherine C. Eckel. (2015). Giving versus taking for a cause. Economics Letters. 132. 28–30.38 indexed citations
13.
Eckel, Catherine C. & Philip J. Grossman. (2008). Differences in the Economic Decisions of Men and Women: Experimental Evidence. SSRN Electronic Journal. 509–519.66 indexed citations
14.
Eckel, Catherine C., Angela C. M. de Oliveira, & Philip J. Grossman. (2007). Is More Information Always Better? An Experimental Study of Charitable Giving and Hurricane Katrina. ScholarWorks@UMassAmherst (University of Massachusetts Amherst).9 indexed citations
15.
Eckel, Catherine C. & Philip J. Grossman. (2003). Rebates Versus Matching: Does How We Subsidize Charitable Contributions Matter?. SSRN Electronic Journal.51 indexed citations
16.
Eckel, Catherine C., Sheryl Ball, Philip J. Grossman, & William R. Zame. (2001). Status in Markets. SSRN Electronic Journal.28 indexed citations
17.
Eckel, Catherine C. & Philip J. Grossman. (2000). Volunteers and Pseudo-Volunteers: The Effect of Recruitment Method on Subjects’ Behavior in Experiments. SSRN Electronic Journal.8 indexed citations
18.
Eckel, Catherine C. & Philip J. Grossman. (1998). Are Women Less Selfish than Men?: Evidence from Dictator Games. SSRN Electronic Journal.26 indexed citations
19.
Grossman, Philip J.. (1984). Property tax assessment bias : a study of the property tax as a user charge. UMI Dissertation Information Service eBooks.1 indexed citations
20.
Maimonides, Moses, et al.. (1965). The book of holiness. Yale University Press eBooks.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.