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.
Understanding Home: A Critical Review of the Literature
Countries citing papers authored by Shelley Mallett
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Shelley Mallett'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 Shelley Mallett with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Shelley Mallett more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Shelley Mallett. 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 Shelley Mallett. The network helps show where Shelley Mallett may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Shelley Mallett
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Shelley Mallett.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Shelley Mallett 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 Shelley Mallett. Shelley Mallett 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.
Bowman, Dina, et al.. (2020). Safety net to poverty trap? The twentieth-century origins of Australia's uneven social security system.1 indexed citations
2.
Bowman, Dina, et al.. (2019). Improving the health of older aged care workers. Minerva Access (University of Melbourne).4 indexed citations
Wood, Gavin, et al.. (2015). The structural drivers of homelessness in Australia 2001-11. eSpace (Curtin University). 238(238). 1–100.5 indexed citations
5.
Wood, Gavin, et al.. (2014). The spatial dynamics of homelessness in Australia 2001-2011. RMIT Research Repository (RMIT University Library). 227(227). 1–96.7 indexed citations
6.
Mallett, Shelley, et al.. (2011). More than just me: Supporting fathers who are homeless. Research Bank (Australian Catholic University). 1.7 indexed citations
7.
Mallett, Shelley. (2011). Precarious housing and health inequalities: what are the links?.21 indexed citations
Mallett, Shelley. (2009). Youth Homelessness Prevention and Early Intervention: A Brief Historical Overview of Key Frameworks in Australia. Parity. 22(2). 5.2 indexed citations
Mallett, Shelley, et al.. (2008). Alice through the Green Paper Looking Glass: Towards an Option Four. Parity. 21(5). 28.1 indexed citations
14.
Mallett, Shelley, et al.. (2006). Why do homeless young people leave home?. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health. 30(3). 281–285.48 indexed citations
Mallett, Shelley. (2004). Giving Voice?: Or Hearing Voices?: A Personal Reflection on the Politics of Speaking and Listening in the Homelessness Sector. Parity. 17(9). 4.2 indexed citations
18.
Mallett, Shelley, et al.. (2003). Living Well?: Homeless Young People in Melbourne. Parity. 16(2). 13.10 indexed citations
19.
Mallett, Shelley, et al.. (2003). Disrupting stereotypes: Young people, drug use and homelessness.15 indexed citations
20.
Mallett, Shelley, et al.. (2001). Providing services to homeless young people in Melbourne. Youth studies Australia. 20(4). 26.8 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.