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.
Importance and exposure in road network vulnerability analysis
2006565 citationsErik Jenelius, Tom Petersen et al.Transportation Research Part A Policy and Practiceprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
This map shows the geographic impact of Tom Petersen'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 Tom Petersen with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Tom Petersen more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Tom Petersen. 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 Tom Petersen. The network helps show where Tom Petersen may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Tom Petersen
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Tom Petersen.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Tom Petersen 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 Tom Petersen. Tom Petersen is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Petersen, Tom, et al.. (2017). Pilot-Scale Demonstration of Ilmenite Processing Technology. University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy (University of Minnesota).2 indexed citations
9.
Petersen, Tom. (2011). Estimating the link between accessibility and productivity with propensity score matching. KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology).1 indexed citations
10.
Petersen, Tom, et al.. (2011). Optimising Bike Sharing in European Cities - A Handbook.32 indexed citations
11.
Jenelius, Erik, Tom Petersen, & Lars‐Göran Mattsson. (2006). Road network vulnerability: identifying important links and exposed regions. KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology).19 indexed citations
12.
Jenelius, Erik, Tom Petersen, & Lars‐Göran Mattsson. (2006). Importance and exposure in road network vulnerability analysis. Transportation Research Part A Policy and Practice. 40(7). 537–560.565 indexed citations breakdown →
13.
Petersen, Tom. (2004). Modelling cross-border transport in Öresund : Scenario assumptions, model results and a before-and-after database. KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology).3 indexed citations
14.
Petersen, Tom. (2004). Modelling cross-border transport: Three cases in Öresund. Econstor (Econstor).1 indexed citations
15.
Petersen, Tom. (2004). Accessibility and productivity : A cost function microdata panel approach. KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology).1 indexed citations
16.
Petersen, Tom. (2001). Controlling for selection bias in the estimation of firm performance as a function of location.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.