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.
Perceived Risk: Further Considerations for the MarketingDiscipline
1993952 citationsRobert N. Stone, Kjell GrønhaugEuropean Journal of Marketingprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
Countries citing papers authored by Robert N. Stone
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Robert N. 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 Robert N. Stone with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Robert N. Stone more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Robert N. 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 Robert N. Stone. The network helps show where Robert N. Stone may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Robert N. Stone
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Robert N. Stone.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Robert N. 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 Robert N. Stone. Robert N. Stone is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Grønhaug, Kjell & Robert N. Stone. (1995). Why Perceived Risk Failed to Achieve Middle Range Theory Status: a Retrospective Research Note. ACR European Advances.13 indexed citations
Stone, Robert N. & Kjell Grønhaug. (1993). Perceived Risk: Further Considerations for the MarketingDiscipline. European Journal of Marketing. 27(3). 39–50.952 indexed citations breakdown →
6.
Stone, Robert N. & J. Barry Mason. (1989). Attitude and risk : exploring the relationship / 1603. Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign).
7.
Stone, Robert N. & Frederick W. Winter. (1985). Risk in buyer behavior contexts : a clarification. Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign).9 indexed citations
8.
Stone, Robert N.. (1984). The Marketing Characteristics of Involvement. ACR North American Advances.72 indexed citations
9.
Ellefson, Paul V. & Robert N. Stone. (1984). U.S. Wood-Based Industry: Industrial Organization and Performance. Medical Entomology and Zoology.8 indexed citations
10.
Stone, Robert N., et al.. (1980). Prospective U.S. wood use situation.. Forest Products Journal. 30(10). 51–56.1 indexed citations
Stone, Robert N. & Jerome F. Saeman. (1978). 2000년대의 세계 목재 수급 ( World Demand and Supply of Timber Products to the Year 2000 ). 10(1). 37–43.1 indexed citations
13.
Spelter, Henry, Robert N. Stone, & David B. McKeever. (1978). Wood usage trends in the furniture and fixtures industry. Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC). 239.3 indexed citations
Stone, Robert N., et al.. (1961). Wisconsin's forest resources /. Biodiversity Heritage Library (Smithsonian Institution).13 indexed citations
20.
Stone, Robert N., et al.. (1959). Forest area in Wisconsin counties /. Biodiversity Heritage Library (Smithsonian Institution).
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.