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.
BIM implementation throughout the UK construction project lifecycle: An analysis
2013556 citationsRobert Eadie, Michael Browne et al.profile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
This map shows the geographic impact of Robert Eadie'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 Robert Eadie with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Robert Eadie more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Robert Eadie. 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 Robert Eadie. The network helps show where Robert Eadie may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Robert Eadie
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Robert Eadie.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Robert Eadie 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 Robert Eadie. Robert Eadie is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Eadie, Robert & Michael D. McClean. (2015). An investigation of interoperability issues between building information modelling (BIM) and e-procurement. Ulster University Research Portal (Ulster University). 7–12.5 indexed citations
5.
Eadie, Robert, et al.. (2015). An investigation into the legal issues relating to Building Information Modelling (BIM). Ulster University Research Portal (Ulster University).27 indexed citations
Eadie, Robert, et al.. (2014). Building Information Modelling Adoption: An Analysis of the Barriers of Implementation. Ulster University Research Portal (Ulster University). 2(1). 77–101.87 indexed citations
Odeyinka, Henry, et al.. (2012). An Exploration of Theoretical Concepts and Methods for Assessing Risk Impacts on the Variability between Contract Sum and Final Account in Design and Build Projects. Ulster University Research Portal (Ulster University).10 indexed citations
Eadie, Robert, Srinath Perera, & George Heaney. (2011). Analysis of the use of e-procurement in the public and private sectors of the UK construction industry. Northumbria Research Link (Northumbria University).27 indexed citations
Eadie, Robert, et al.. (2011). The Social Element of Sustainable Civil Engineering Public Procurement in Northern Ireland. 2(12). 36–43.10 indexed citations
16.
Odeyinka, Henry, et al.. (2011). Innovative Construction Procurement Selection Through An Artificial Intelligence Approach. 745–754.3 indexed citations
17.
Eadie, Robert, Srinath Perera, & George Heaney. (2010). A CROSS DISCIPLINE COMPARISON OF RANKINGS FOR E-PROCUREMENT DRIVERS AND BARRIERS WITHIN UK CONSTRUCTION ORGANISATIONS. Journal of Information Technology in Construction. 15(17). 217–233.26 indexed citations
18.
Eadie, Robert, Srinath Perera, & George Heaney. (2010). Identification of E-Procurement Drivers and Barriers for UK Construction Organisations and Ranking of these from the Perspective of Quantity Surveyors. Northumbria Research Link (Northumbria University).53 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.