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.
A methodology for analysing and evaluating narratives in annual reports: a comprehensive descriptive profile and metrics for disclosure quality attributes
2004748 citationsVivien Beattie, Stella Fearnley et al.profile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
Countries citing papers authored by Vivien Beattie
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Vivien Beattie'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 Vivien Beattie with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Vivien Beattie more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Vivien Beattie. 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 Vivien Beattie. The network helps show where Vivien Beattie may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Vivien Beattie
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Vivien Beattie.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Vivien Beattie 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 Vivien Beattie. Vivien Beattie 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.
Kreander, Niklas, et al.. (2014). Differences in charity ethical investments in Norway and the UK: An institutional analysis of the impact of a sovereign wealth fund. Research Explorer (The University of Manchester).1 indexed citations
2.
Beattie, Vivien & Sarah Smith. (2013). Value Creation and Business Models: Refocusing the Intellectual Capital Debate. SSRN Electronic Journal.1 indexed citations
Beattie, Vivien & Michael John Jones. (2008). Corporate Reporting Using Graphs: A Review and Synthesis. Journal of Accounting Literature. 27. 71–110.99 indexed citations
7.
Beattie, Vivien, Stella Fearnley, & Tony Hines. (2008). Briefing: Auditor/company interactions in the 2007 UK regulatory environment. ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam).2 indexed citations
Beattie, Vivien & Michael John Jones. (2002). The Impact of Graph Slope on Rate of Change Judgments in Corporate Reports. SSRN Electronic Journal.1 indexed citations
16.
Beattie, Vivien, Stella Fearnley, & Richard B. Brandt. (2001). Behind Closed Doors. Palgrave Macmillan Books.3 indexed citations
Beattie, Vivien & Mike Jones. (1998). Graphical reporting choices:communication or manipulation?. OpenGrey (Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique).7 indexed citations
19.
Beattie, Vivien, Peter Casson, Richard Dale, et al.. (1994). Loan Loss Provisioning by International Banks: Estimation, Determinants and Evidence. ePrints Soton (University of Southampton).1 indexed citations
20.
Beattie, Vivien, et al.. (1991). Bond ratings and inter-rater agreement : a cross-sectional analysis. ePrints Soton (University of Southampton).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.