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.
Structural Analysis of Laminated Anisotropic Plates
Citations per year, relative to Richard King Richard King (= 1×)
peers
Hayato NAKATANI
Countries citing papers authored by Richard King
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Richard King'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 Richard King with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Richard King more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Richard King. 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 Richard King. The network helps show where Richard King may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Richard King
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Richard King.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Richard King 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 Richard King. Richard King 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.
Kelly, Jack B., et al.. (2020). Are you there? : A Literature Review of Presence for Immersive Music Reproduction. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society.3 indexed citations
2.
King, Richard, et al.. (2018). Acoustic and Subjective Evaluation of 22.2- and 2-Channel Reproduced Sound Fields in Three Studios. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society.1 indexed citations
3.
King, Richard, et al.. (2018). Dynamic Range Controller Ear Training: Analysis of Audio Engineering Student Training Data. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society.1 indexed citations
4.
King, Richard, et al.. (2017). Subjective Evaluation of Orchestral Music Recording Techniques for Three-Dimensional Audio. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society.4 indexed citations
5.
King, Richard, et al.. (2016). A Survey of Suggested Techniques for Height Channel Capture in Multichannel Recording. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society.1 indexed citations
6.
King, Richard, et al.. (2016). Subjective Graphical Representation of Microphone Arrays for Vertical Imaging and Three-Dimensional Capture of Acoustic Instruments, Part I. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society.1 indexed citations
7.
King, Richard, et al.. (2015). Exploratory Microphone Techniques for Three-Dimensional Classical Music Recording. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society.2 indexed citations
8.
King, Richard, et al.. (2015). Perceptual Evaluation of Music Mixing Practices. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society.10 indexed citations
9.
King, Richard, et al.. (2015). Listener Preference for Height Channel Microphone Polar Patterns in Three-Dimensional Recording. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society.1 indexed citations
10.
King, Richard, et al.. (2013). A Perceptual Evaluation of Recording, Rendering, and Reproduction Techniques for Multichannel Spatial Audio. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society.
11.
King, Richard, et al.. (2013). The Effect of Playback System on Reverberation Level Preference. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society.2 indexed citations
12.
King, Richard, et al.. (2012). How Can Sample Rates Be Properly Compared in Terms of Audio Quality. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society.1 indexed citations
13.
King, Richard, et al.. (2012). The Effect of Acoustic Environment on Reverberation Level Preference. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society.1 indexed citations
14.
Guastavino, Catherine, et al.. (2012). A Comparison of Recording, Rendering, and Reproduction Techniques for Multichannel Spatial Audio. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society.1 indexed citations
15.
King, Richard, et al.. (2012). Consistency of Balance Preferences in Three Musical Genres. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society.1 indexed citations
16.
King, Richard, et al.. (2011). The Practical Effects of Lateral Energy in Critical Listening Environments. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society. 60(12). 997–1003.
17.
King, Richard, et al.. (2010). Variance in Level Preference of Balance Engineers: A Study of Mixing Preference and Variance Over Time. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society.2 indexed citations
18.
Whitaker, Kathryn S., et al.. (2004). SCHOOL DISTRICT-UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIPS: GRADUATE STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF THE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF A REFORMED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM. Planning and changing. 35. 209–222.15 indexed citations
19.
King, Richard. (1975). Airport noise pollution : a bibliography of its effects on people and property. SMU Scholar (Southern Methodist University). 41(3). 563.5 indexed citations
20.
King, Richard, et al.. (1957). Mixed Colonies in Ants: Third Report. UNI ScholarWorks (University of Northern Iowa). 64(1). 667–669.2 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.