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.
Exploration, exploitation, and financial performance: analysis of S&P 500 corporations
2008658 citationsJuha Uotila, Markku Maula et al.Strategic Management Journalprofile →
Renewing Research on Problemistic Search—A Review and Research Agenda
2017301 citationsHart E. Posen, Thomas Keil et al.Academy of Management Annalsprofile →
Driven by aspirations, but in what direction? Performance shortfalls, slack resources, and resource‐consuming vs. resource‐freeing organizational change
2016250 citationsThomas Keil, Markku Maula et al.Strategic Management Journalprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
This map shows the geographic impact of Thomas Keil'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 Thomas Keil with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Thomas Keil more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Thomas Keil. 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 Thomas Keil. The network helps show where Thomas Keil may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Thomas Keil
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Thomas Keil.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Thomas Keil 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 Thomas Keil. Thomas Keil is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Posen, Hart E., Thomas Keil, SangYun Kim, & Felix Meissner. (2017). Renewing Research on Problemistic Search – A Review and Research Agenda. SSRN Electronic Journal.1 indexed citations
Keil, Thomas & Tomi Laamanen. (2011). When Rivals Merge, Think Before You Follow Suit. Harvard business review. 89(12). 701–703.6 indexed citations
10.
Schildt, Henri, Thomas Keil, & Markku Maula. (2011). The Temporal Effects of Relative and Firm-Level Absorptive Capacity on Interorganizational Learning. SSRN Electronic Journal.1 indexed citations
11.
Uotila, Juha, Markku Maula, Shaker A. Zahra, & Thomas Keil. (2008). Exploration, Exploitation, and Financial Performance: Analysis of S&P 500 Corporations. SSRN Electronic Journal.28 indexed citations
12.
McGrath, Rita Gunther, et al.. (2006). Extracting value from corporate venturing. MIT Sloan management review. 48(1). 50–56.52 indexed citations
13.
Zahra, Shaker A., Thomas Keil, & Markku Maula. (2005). New Ventures' Inward Licensing: Examining the Effects of Industry and Strategy Characteristics. SSRN Electronic Journal.1 indexed citations
14.
Keil, Thomas, Markku Maula, & Henri Schildt. (2003). Corporate Venturing Modes and Their Impact on Corporate Learning. SSRN Electronic Journal.2 indexed citations
Keil, Thomas, D. Mark Austin, & Viviana Andreescu. (1996). Concerns about Neighborhood Safety in Two Romanian Cities: Copsa Mica and Bucuresti. East European quarterly. 30(1). 97.4 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.