Digital labour platforms and the future of work: Towards decent work in the online world
In The Last Decade
doi.org/w61370683 →Countries where authors are citing Digital labour platforms and the future of work: Towards decent work in the online world
This map shows the geographic impact of Digital labour platforms and the future of work: Towards decent work in the online world. 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 Digital labour platforms and the future of work: Towards decent work in the online world with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Digital labour platforms and the future of work: Towards decent work in the online world more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Digital labour platforms and the future of work: Towards decent work in the online world
This network shows the impact of Digital labour platforms and the future of work: Towards decent work in the online world. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Digital labour platforms and the future of work: Towards decent work in the online world.
About Digital labour platforms and the future of work: Towards decent work in the online world
This paper, published in 2018, received 284 indexed citations . Written by Janine Berg, Marianne Furrer, Ellie Harmon, Uma Rani and M. Six Silberman covering the research area of General Health Professions, Industrial relations and Sociology and Political Science. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Sociology and Political Science (223 citations), Marketing (126 citations) and General Health Professions (95 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.
This paper is also available at doi.org/w61370683.