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.
Fairness and competence in citizen participation : evaluating models for environmental discourse
1995517 citationsOrtwin Renn, Thomas Webler et al.Kluwer Academic eBooksprofile →
Author Peers
Peers are selected by citation overlap in the author's most active subfields.
citations ·
hero ref
This map shows the geographic impact of Thomas Webler'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 Webler with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Thomas Webler more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Thomas Webler. 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 Webler. The network helps show where Thomas Webler may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Thomas Webler
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Thomas Webler.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Thomas Webler 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 Webler. Thomas Webler is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Webler, Thomas & Seth Tuler. (2006). Introduction: Recent Research in Public Participation: A Focus on Learning. 13(2). 148–149.8 indexed citations
12.
Webler, Thomas, et al.. (2004). Competing Perspectives on Public Participation in National Park Service Planning: The Boston Harbor Islands National Park Area. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. 22(3). 91–113.8 indexed citations
13.
Webler, Thomas & Seth Tuler. (2001). Public Participation in Watershed Management Planning: Views on Process from People in the Field. Western CEDAR (Western Washington University). 8(2). 29–39.82 indexed citations
14.
Tuler, Seth & Thomas Webler. (1999). Designing an Analytic Deliberative Process for Environmental Health Policy Making in the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Complex. University of New Hampshire Scholars Repository (University of New Hampshire at Manchester). 10(1). 7.15 indexed citations
15.
Webler, Thomas & Seth Tuler. (1998). How To Do Environmental Decision Making: Varying Perspectives on the U.S. National Research Council’s Understanding Risk Report. Western CEDAR (Western Washington University). 5(1). 35–36.1 indexed citations
16.
Webler, Thomas. (1998). Beyond Science: Deliberation and Analysis in Public Decision Making. Western CEDAR (Western Washington University). 5(1). 61–62.9 indexed citations
17.
Webler, Thomas. (1997). Organizing Public Participation: A Critical Review of Three Handbooks. Western CEDAR (Western Washington University). 3(2). 245–254.12 indexed citations
18.
Renn, Ortwin, Thomas Webler, & Hans Kastenholz. (1996). Procedural and substantive fairness in landfill siting: A Swiss case study. University of New Hampshire Scholars Repository (University of New Hampshire at Manchester).36 indexed citations
19.
Renn, Ortwin, Thomas Webler, & Peter M. Wiedemann. (1995). Fairness and competence in citizen participation : evaluating models for environmental discourse. Kluwer Academic eBooks.517 indexed citations breakdown →
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.