Countries citing papers authored by Phillip Johnson
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Phillip Johnson'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 Phillip Johnson with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Phillip Johnson more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Phillip Johnson. 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 Phillip Johnson. The network helps show where Phillip Johnson may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Phillip Johnson
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Phillip Johnson.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Phillip Johnson 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 Phillip Johnson. Phillip Johnson is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Johnson, Phillip. (2023). Enhanced Distinctiveness and Why “Strong Marks” Are Causing Us All Confusion. GRURRR. Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht, Rechtsprechungs-Report/GRUR-DVD/GRUR-CD/IIC/Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht/Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht. Internationaler Teil. 55(2). 185–212.
Johnson, Phillip. (2016). Sark, the Supreme Court and the status of the Channel Islands: or Barclay bites back. ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University).
Johnson, Phillip. (2012). What can the press really say? Contempt of court and the reporting of parliamentary proceedings. ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University). 491–507.
10.
Johnson, Phillip. (2008). Look out! It's an ambush!. ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University).1 indexed citations
11.
Johnson, Phillip. (2001). Can You Quote Donald Duck?: Intellectual Property in Cyberculture. LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas). 13(2). 4.
12.
Purves, I, et al.. (1999). The PRODIGY Knowledge Architecture Requirements for Chronic Disease Management in Primary Care.. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 1170–1170.1 indexed citations
13.
Johnson, Phillip & Ervin Y. Rodin. (1989). Formal theories of politics : mathematical modelling in political science. Pergamon Press eBooks.4 indexed citations
14.
Johnson, Phillip. (1986). The Virtues of Alternatives. Journal of legal education. 36. 138.1 indexed citations
15.
Johnson, Phillip. (1986). Statutory Replacement for the Miranda Doctrine, A. 24. 303.
16.
Johnson, Phillip. (1986). The expert mind: a new challenge for the information scientist. 377–396.21 indexed citations
17.
Martin, Peter W., Robert W. Gordon, Paul D. Carrington, et al.. (1985). "Of Law and the River," and of Nihilism and Academic Freedom. Journal of legal education. 35. 1.13 indexed citations
18.
Johnson, Phillip. (1983). The Return of the Christian Burial Speech Case. Emory law journal. 32. 349.1 indexed citations
19.
Johnson, Phillip. (1973). Federal Parole Procedures. 25. 459.1 indexed citations
20.
Johnson, Phillip. (1972). A history of set theory.4 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.