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 similarity measure for indefinite rankings
2010452 citationsWilliam Webber, Alistair Moffat 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 William Webber
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of William Webber'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 William Webber with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites William Webber more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by William Webber. 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 William Webber. The network helps show where William Webber may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of William Webber
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of William Webber.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of William Webber 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 William Webber. William Webber 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.
Ravana, Sri Devi, et al.. (2017). Effects of Objective and Subjective Competence on the Reliability of Crowdsourced Relevance Judgments.. 22(1).2 indexed citations
Webber, William. (2010). Evaluating the Effectiveness of Keyword Search.. IEEE Data(base) Engineering Bulletin. 33. 54–59.12 indexed citations
10.
Webber, William, Falk Scholer, Mingfang Wu, et al.. (2010). The Melbourne Team at the TREC 2010 Legal Track.. Text REtrieval Conference.2 indexed citations
11.
Armstrong, Timothy G., Justin Zobel, William Webber, & Alistair Moffat. (2009). Relative significance is insufficient: Baselines matter too. Minerva Access (University of Melbourne).2 indexed citations
12.
Armstrong, Timothy G., Alistair Moffat, William Webber, & Justin Zobel. (2009). Has adhoc retrieval improved since 1994?. Minerva Access (University of Melbourne). 692–693.20 indexed citations
Anh, Vo Ngoc, William Webber, & Alistair Moffat. (2006). Melbourne University at the 2006 Terabyte Track. Text REtrieval Conference.2 indexed citations
Anh, Vo Ngoc, William Webber, & Alistair Moffat. (2005). Melbourne University 2005: Enterprise and Terabyte Tracks. Text REtrieval Conference.1 indexed citations
19.
Bernstein, Yaniv, Bodo Billerbeck, Nicholas Lester, et al.. (2005). RMIT University at TREC 2005: Terabyte and Robust Track.. Text REtrieval Conference.11 indexed citations
20.
Billerbeck, Bodo, et al.. (2004). RMIT University at TREC 2004. Text REtrieval Conference.7 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.