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.
Noncooperative Collusion under Imperfect Price Information
19841.3k citationsRobert H. Porter et al.Econometricaprofile →
Citations per year, relative to Robert H. Porter Robert H. Porter (= 1×)
peers
Luı́s Cabral
Countries citing papers authored by Robert H. Porter
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Robert H. Porter'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 H. Porter with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Robert H. Porter more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by Robert H. Porter
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Robert H. Porter. 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 H. Porter. The network helps show where Robert H. Porter may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Robert H. Porter
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Robert H. Porter.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Robert H. Porter 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 H. Porter. Robert H. Porter is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Zona, J. Douglas & Robert H. Porter. (2004). Bidding, Bid Rigging, and School Milk Prices: Ohio v. Trauth (1994). 329–350.1 indexed citations
3.
Porter, Robert H.. (2001). Detecting Collusion Among Bidders in Auction Markets.
4.
Hendricks, Kenneth & Robert H. Porter. (1996). The timing and incidence of exploratory drilling on offshore wildcat tracts. American Economic Review. 86(3). 388–407.50 indexed citations
5.
Hendricks, Kenneth, Robert H. Porter, & Guofu Tan. (1993). Optimal selling strategies for oil and gas leases with an informed buyer. American Economic Review. 83(2). 234–239.17 indexed citations
Hendricks, Kenneth & Robert H. Porter. (1992). Joint Bidding in Federal OCS Auctions. American Economic Review. 82(2). 506–511.70 indexed citations
8.
Porter, Robert H.. (1991). A Review Essay on Handbook of Industrial Organization. Journal of Economic Literature. 29(2). 553–572.11 indexed citations
9.
Hendricks, Kenneth & Robert H. Porter. (1989). Collusion in Auctions. Annals of Economics and Statistics. 217–230.3 indexed citations
10.
Daughety, Andrew F., Augustin Cournot, John F. Nash, et al.. (1989). Cournot Oligopoly. Cambridge University Press eBooks.13 indexed citations
11.
Porter, Robert H. & Kenneth Hendricks. (1988). An Empirical Study of an Auction with Asymmetric Information. American Economic Review. 78(5). 865–883.224 indexed citations
Perry, Martin & Robert H. Porter. (1983). Oligopoly and the incentive for horizontal merger. American Economic Review. 75(1). 219–227.467 indexed citations
Porter, Robert H.. (1982). A Study of Cartel Stability: The Joint Economic Committee 1880 - 1886. University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy (University of Minnesota).8 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.