Robert Lew

20.6k total citations · 4 hit papers
256 papers, 14.1k citations indexed

About

Robert Lew is a scholar working on Language and Linguistics, Oncology and Artificial Intelligence. According to data from OpenAlex, Robert Lew has authored 256 papers receiving a total of 14.1k indexed citations (citations by other indexed papers that have themselves been cited), including 63 papers in Language and Linguistics, 55 papers in Oncology and 48 papers in Artificial Intelligence. Recurrent topics in Robert Lew's work include Lexicography and Language Studies (60 papers), Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management (48 papers) and Natural Language Processing Techniques (37 papers). Robert Lew is often cited by papers focused on Lexicography and Language Studies (60 papers), Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management (48 papers) and Natural Language Processing Techniques (37 papers). Robert Lew collaborates with scholars based in United States, Poland and United Kingdom. Robert Lew's co-authors include Joseph R. DiFranza, Matthew H. Liang, Howard K. Koh, Jeffrey N. Katz, Elizabeth A. Wright, Anne H. Fossel, Charlotte B. Phillips, Elena Losina, Alan C. Geller and Nizar N. Mahomed and has published in prestigious journals such as New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA and Journal of Biological Chemistry.

In The Last Decade

Robert Lew

249 papers receiving 13.3k citations

Hit Papers

Effects of Vitamin D and Calcium Supplementati... 1983 2026 1997 2011 2003 2003 2001 1983 200 400 600

Peers — A (Enhanced Table)

Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late) cites · hero ref

Name h Career Trend Papers Cites
Robert Lew United States 62 3.2k 2.6k 1.6k 1.5k 1.5k 256 14.1k
Paul T. Seed United Kingdom 73 2.0k 0.6× 1.2k 0.5× 1.7k 1.1× 1.4k 0.9× 2.7k 1.8× 473 19.6k
Andreas Stang Germany 56 5.5k 1.7× 5.4k 2.1× 1.0k 0.6× 1.4k 0.9× 3.5k 2.3× 382 25.3k
Martin Schumacher Germany 80 3.8k 1.2× 2.2k 0.8× 429 0.3× 1.5k 1.0× 2.9k 1.9× 462 20.3k
William D. Dupont United States 63 2.9k 0.9× 3.0k 1.2× 2.4k 1.5× 5.1k 3.3× 2.9k 1.9× 257 19.2k
Clareann H. Bunker United Kingdom 52 2.3k 0.7× 1.2k 0.4× 1.2k 0.7× 1.0k 0.7× 1.6k 1.1× 408 9.9k
Petra Macaskill Australia 60 4.4k 1.4× 4.0k 1.6× 456 0.3× 3.5k 2.2× 4.1k 2.7× 166 24.3k
Tamar Nijsten Netherlands 62 2.2k 0.7× 3.2k 1.2× 5.6k 3.4× 952 0.6× 3.1k 2.1× 335 14.3k
Peter Martus Germany 76 6.2k 1.9× 7.8k 3.0× 747 0.5× 2.7k 1.8× 2.6k 1.7× 595 25.3k
Donald R. Miller United States 69 1.3k 0.4× 1.9k 0.7× 1.2k 0.7× 621 0.4× 2.2k 1.5× 302 17.0k
Nima Rezaei Iran 71 1.7k 0.5× 2.8k 1.1× 841 0.5× 1.4k 0.9× 3.1k 2.1× 1.2k 26.4k

Countries citing papers authored by Robert Lew

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of Robert Lew'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 Lew with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Robert Lew more than expected).

Fields of papers citing papers by Robert Lew

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers produced by Robert Lew. 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 Lew. The network helps show where Robert Lew may publish in the future.

Co-authorship network of co-authors of Robert Lew

This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Robert Lew. A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Robert Lew 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 Lew. Robert Lew 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.
Lew, Robert, et al.. (2025). Dictionaries versus AI Tools through the Eyes of English Majors. International Journal of Lexicography. 38(2). 140–158. 1 indexed citations
2.
Lew, Robert, et al.. (2024). The Effect of Defining Model on the Accuracy of Syntactic Class Identification in When-Definitions in Digital Dictionaries. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies. 24(3). 20–33. 1 indexed citations
3.
Szmulewicz, Alejandro, Arin L. Madenci, Ryan Ferguson, et al.. (2023). Estimating the per-protocol effect of lithium on suicidality in a randomized trial of individuals with depression or bipolar disorder. Journal of Psychopharmacology. 37(6). 539–544. 4 indexed citations
4.
Lew, Robert, et al.. (2023). The Effectiveness of OpenAI GPT-Generated Definitions Versus Definitions from an English Learners’ Dictionary in a Lexically Orientated Reading Task. International Journal of Lexicography. 37(1). 50–74. 7 indexed citations
5.
Koza, Zbigniew, et al.. (2023). Who Controls the National Academic Promotion System: An Analysis of Power Distribution in Poland. SAGE Open. 13(2). 1 indexed citations
6.
Hidalgo, Enric Senabre, et al.. (2022). Manifesto sprint on biocultural diversity: an experimental approach to knowledge co-creation, discourse design and collaborative writing. Cogent Arts and Humanities. 9(1). 4 indexed citations
7.
Frankenberg‐Garcia, Ana, et al.. (2020). Slipping Through the Cracks in e-Lexicography. International Journal of Lexicography. 34(2). 206–234. 15 indexed citations
8.
Iverson, Katherine M., Melissa E. Dichter, Kelly Stolzmann, et al.. (2020). Assessing the Veterans Health Administration’s response to intimate partner violence among women: protocol for a randomized hybrid type 2 implementation-effectiveness trial. Implementation Science. 15(1). 29–29. 16 indexed citations
9.
Roberts, Jonathan C., et al.. (2019). Multiple Views: different meanings and collocated words. Computer Graphics Forum. 38(3). 79–93. 10 indexed citations
11.
Müller-Spitzer, Carolin, et al.. (2018). Eine europaweite Umfrage zu Wörterbuchbenutzung und -kultur. Ergebnisse der deutschen Teilnehmenden. Publication Server of the Institute for German Language (Institute for German Language). 34(2). 26–35. 1 indexed citations
12.
Korgavkar, Kaveri, et al.. (2014). Measuring the Severity of Topical 5-Fluorouracil Toxicity. Journal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery. 18(4). 229–235. 7 indexed citations
13.
Panasyuk, Svetlana V., et al.. (2011). Abstract 13398: Assessment of a Continuous Monitoring Technique to Measure Adequacy of Respiration. Circulation. 124. 2 indexed citations
14.
Lew, Robert, et al.. (2007). THE EFFECT OF SIGNPOSTS ON ACCESS SPEED AND LOOKUP TASK SUCCESS IN LONG AND SHORT ENTRIES. 6(2). 235–252. 15 indexed citations
15.
Lew, Robert & Anna Dziemianko. (2006). Non-standard dictionary definitions: What they cannot tell native speakers of Polish.. SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología. 2(18). 275–294. 9 indexed citations
16.
Lew, Robert. (2004). Which dictionary for whom? Receptive use of bilingual, monolingual and semi-bilingual dictionaries by Polish learners of English. Journal of Child Neurology. 16(5). 339–44. 71 indexed citations
17.
Lew, Robert. (1997). Towards a taxonomy of linguistic jokes. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia. 31. 123–152. 6 indexed citations
18.
Lew, Robert. (1996). Exploitation of linguistic ambiguity in Polish and English jokes. Repozytorium Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań). 31. 127–133. 5 indexed citations
19.
Robins, Perry, Calvin L. Day, & Robert Lew. (1984). A Multivariate Analysis of Factors Affecting Wound‐Healing Time. PubMed. 10(3). 219–221. 13 indexed citations
20.
Morgan, Mary, et al.. (1980). The Use of a Sequential Bayesian Model in Diagnostic and Prognostic Prediction in a Medical Intensive Care Unit. PubMed Central. 1. 213–221. 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.

Explore authors with similar magnitude of impact

Rankless by CCL
2026