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.
Biodiversity Conservation and the Eradication of Poverty
Countries citing papers authored by William Wolmer
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of William Wolmer'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 Wolmer with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites William Wolmer more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by William Wolmer. 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 Wolmer. The network helps show where William Wolmer may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of William Wolmer
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of William Wolmer.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of William Wolmer 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 Wolmer. William Wolmer is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Büscher, Bram, et al.. (2007). The politics of engagement between biodiversity conservation and the social sciences. Conservation and Society.3 indexed citations
Büscher, Bram & William Wolmer. (2007). Introduction: The Politics of Engagement between Biodiversity Conservation and the Social Sciences. Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling.31 indexed citations
6.
Scoones, Ian & William Wolmer. (2006). Livestock, disease, trade and markets : policy choices for the livestock sector in Africa. OpenDocs (Institute of Development Studies).27 indexed citations
Wolmer, William. (2003). Transboundary Protected Area governance: tensions and paradoxes.10 indexed citations
10.
Ashley, Caroline & William Wolmer. (2003). Transforming or Tinkering? New Forms of Engagement between Communities and the Private Sector in Tourism and Forestry in Southern Africa.6 indexed citations
Scoones, Ian, et al.. (2003). New Politics, New Livelihoods: Changes in the Zimbabwean Lowveld since the Farm Occupations of 2000.9 indexed citations
14.
Wolmer, William, et al.. (2002). Crops, livestock & livelihoods in Zimbabwe.. 137–181.1 indexed citations
15.
Scoones, Ian & William Wolmer. (2002). Pathways of Change in Africa: Crops, Livestock and Livelihoods in Mali, Ethiopia and Zimbabwe. Medical Entomology and Zoology.29 indexed citations
16.
Carswell, Grace, Ian Scoones, & William Wolmer. (2002). Complexity, change & continuity in Southern Ethiopia: the case of crop-livestock integration.. 91–135.2 indexed citations
17.
Ramisch, Joshua J., et al.. (2002). Crop-livestock integration in Mali: multiple pathways of change.. 33–90.5 indexed citations
Wolmer, William. (1997). Crop-Livestock Integration: The Dynamics of Intensification in Contrasting Agroecological Zones: A Review. OpenDocs (Institute of Development Studies). 15–24.8 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.