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.
Audit Fees: A Meta‐analysis of the Effect of Supply and Demand Attributes*
20061.3k citationsDavid Hay, W. Robert Knechel et al.profile →
Audit Quality: Insights from the Academic Literature
2012558 citationsW. Robert Knechel, Mikhail Pevzner et al.Auditing A Journal of Practice & Theoryprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
Countries citing papers authored by W. Robert Knechel
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of W. Robert Knechel'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 W. Robert Knechel with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites W. Robert Knechel more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by W. Robert Knechel
This network shows the impact of papers produced by W. Robert Knechel. 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 W. Robert Knechel. The network helps show where W. Robert Knechel may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of W. Robert Knechel
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of W. Robert Knechel.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of W. Robert Knechel 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 W. Robert Knechel. W. Robert Knechel is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Knechel, W. Robert, Lasse Niemi, & Mikko Zerni. (2013). Empirical Evidence on the Implicit Determinants of Compensation in Big Four Audit Partnerships. SSRN Electronic Journal.6 indexed citations
Causholli, Monika, et al.. (2011). Audit Markets, Fees and Production: Towards An Integrated View of Empirical Audit Research. Journal of Accounting Literature. 29. 167–215.87 indexed citations
Meuwissen, Ralph, W. Robert Knechel, Rogier Deumes, et al.. (2009). Evaluation of the differences between International Standards on Auditing (ISA) and the standards of the US Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). Research Publications (Maastricht University).1 indexed citations
Knechel, W. Robert, Steven E. Salterio, & Brian Ballou. (2001). Auditing : assurance & risk.30 indexed citations
18.
Bell, Timothy B., W. Robert Knechel, Jeff L. Payne, & John J. Willingham. (1998). An Empirical Investigation of the Relationship between the Computerization of Accounting Systems and the Incidence and Size of Audit Differences. Auditing A Journal of Practice & Theory. 17(1). 13.35 indexed citations
19.
Knechel, W. Robert. (1998). Auditing : text & cases.3 indexed citations
20.
Hackenbrack, Karl E. & W. Robert Knechel. (1997). Resource Allocation Decision in Audit Engagements. SSRN Electronic Journal.46 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.