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.
Linear Expenditure Systems and Demand Analysis: An Application to the Pattern of British Demand
This map shows the geographic impact of Richard Stone'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 Stone with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Richard Stone more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Richard Stone. 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 Stone. The network helps show where Richard Stone may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Richard Stone
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Richard Stone.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Richard Stone 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 Stone. Richard Stone is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Summers, David A., Robin Edwards, T. Bradshaw, et al.. (2014). Design Description of a Planned Breadboard Development of a Stirling Power Conversion System (SPCS) for the European Space Agency (ESA) Powered by a Simulated Nuclear Fuel Module. ESASP. 719. 15.2 indexed citations
4.
Stone, Richard. (2009). Divining for Angkor. National geographic/The complete National geographic/The National geographic magazine. 216(1). 26–55.3 indexed citations
Stone, Richard. (1984). The Accounts of Society. American Economic Review. 87(6). 17–29.5 indexed citations
12.
Stone, Richard. (1981). Aspects of economic and social modelling. Droz eBooks.27 indexed citations
13.
Stone, Richard. (1980). Whittling Away at the Residual: Some Thoughts on Denison's Growth Accounting: A Review Article. Journal of Economic Literature. 18(4). 1539–1543.6 indexed citations
14.
Solari, Luigi & Richard Stone. (1971). Théorie des choix et fonctions de consommation semi-agrégées : Modèles statiques. Droz eBooks.12 indexed citations
15.
Stone, Richard, Alan Brown, & David A. Rowe. (1964). Demand analysis and projections for Britain : 1900-1970 : a study in method. Cambridge University Press eBooks.10 indexed citations
16.
Stone, Richard, et al.. (1963). A programme for economic growth. Cambridge University Press eBooks.1 indexed citations
17.
Stone, Richard. (1961). Input-output and national accounts. Virtual Defense Library (Ministerio de Defensa).158 indexed citations
18.
Gilbert, Milton & Richard Stone. (1954). Recent developments in national income and social accounting. Cambridge University Press eBooks.3 indexed citations
19.
Stone, Richard, et al.. (1953). The relationship between input-output analysis and national accounting. Cambridge University Press eBooks.4 indexed citations
20.
Stone, Richard. (1951). The role of measurement in economics : the Newmarch lectures, 1948-1949, given at University College, London. Cambridge 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.