← Back to paper list

Citation Analysis

\begindocument
Clemens Possnig, Andreea Rotărescu, Kyungchul Song
https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.08995
77
Citation mentions
53
Cited references
7
Sections
9,070
Words (approx)

References by Citation Intensity

Ordered by composite index (descending). Higher values indicate more intensive citation.

# Reference Year Mentions Breadth Sec. Wtd Share Composite Main %
1 Acharya, Eisert, Eufinger, and Hirsch 2019 4 3 6.0 0.052 0.928 100%
2 Kuersteiner and Prucha 2020 6 2 7.0 0.078 0.874 100%
3 Arellano and Bover 1995 4 2 5.0 0.052 0.811 100%
4 Chodorow-Reich 2014 3 2 4.0 0.039 0.737 100%
5 Caballero, Hoshi, and Kashyap 2008 2 2 3.0 0.026 0.644 100%
6 Blattner, Farinha, and Rebelo 2019 2 2 3.0 0.026 0.644 100%
7 Adalet McGowan, Andrews, and Millot 2018 2 2 3.0 0.026 0.644 100%
8 Gopinath, Kalemli-Ozcan, Karabarbounis, and Villeg... 2017 2 2 3.0 0.026 0.644 100%
9 Romano and Shaikh 2010 2 2 4.0 0.026 0.644 100%
10 Kojevnikov, Marmer, and Song (self) 2021 2 2 4.0 0.026 0.644 100%
11 Kalemli-Ozcan, Laeven, and Moreno 2022 2 2 4.0 0.026 0.644 100%
12 Laeven, McAdam, and Popov 2018 2 2 4.0 0.026 0.644 100%
13 Peek and Rosengren 2000 2 1 2.0 0.026 0.511 100%
14 Khwaja and Mian 2008 2 1 2.0 0.026 0.511 100%
15 Andrews and Petroulakis 2019 2 1 4.0 0.026 0.511 100%
16 Peek and Rosengren 2005 1 1 1.0 0.013 0.406 100%
17 Giannetti and Simonov 2013 1 1 1.0 0.013 0.406 100%
18 Schivardi, Sette, and Tabellini 2022 1 1 1.0 0.013 0.406 100%
19 Acharya, Crosignani, Eisert, and Steffen 2022 1 1 1.0 0.013 0.406 100%
20 Schmidt, Schneider, Steffen, and Streitz 2020 1 1 1.0 0.013 0.406 100%
21 Hsieh and Klenow 2009 1 1 1.0 0.013 0.406 100%
22 Bentolila, Jansen, and Jimenez 2018 1 1 1.0 0.013 0.406 100%
23 Chamberlain 1984 1 1 1.0 0.013 0.406 100%
24 Arellano and Honor\'e 2001 1 1 1.0 0.013 0.406 100%
25 Hayakawa 2009 1 1 1.0 0.013 0.406 100%
26 Holtz-Eakin, Newey, and Rosen 1988 1 1 1.0 0.013 0.406 100%
27 Ahn, Lee, and Schmidt 2001 1 1 1.0 0.013 0.406 100%
28 Fernandez-Val and Weidner 2018 1 1 1.0 0.013 0.406 100%
29 Shi and Lee 2017 1 1 1.0 0.013 0.406 100%
30 Lee 2004 1 1 1.0 0.013 0.406 100%
31 Lee and Yu 2010 1 1 1.0 0.013 0.406 100%
32 Lee, Liu, and Lin 2010 1 1 1.0 0.013 0.406 100%
33 Kuersteiner and Prucha 2013 1 1 1.0 0.013 0.406 100%
34 Egami 2021 1 1 1.0 0.013 0.406 100%
35 Drukker, Egger, and Prucha 2022 1 1 1.0 0.013 0.406 100%
36 Choi 2017 1 1 2.0 0.013 0.406 100%
37 de Paula, Rasul, and Souza 2020 1 1 2.0 0.013 0.406 100%
38 Zhang 2020 1 1 2.0 0.013 0.406 100%
39 Lewbel, Qu, and Tang 2021 1 1 2.0 0.013 0.406 100%
40 He and Song (self) 2022 1 1 2.0 0.013 0.406 100%
41 Arellano 2003 1 1 2.0 0.013 0.406 100%
42 Donald and Newey 2001 1 1 2.0 0.013 0.406 100%
43 Romano and Wolf 2005 1 1 2.0 0.013 0.406 100%
44 Lehmann and Romano 2005 1 1 2.0 0.013 0.406 100%
45 Leung 2020 1 1 2.0 0.013 0.406 100%
46 Kalemli-Ozcan, Sorensen, Villegas-Sanchez, Volosov... 2015 1 1 2.0 0.013 0.406 100%
47 Giannetti and Ongena 2012 1 1 2.0 0.013 0.406 100%
48 Duprey and Le 2016 1 1 2.0 0.013 0.406 100%
49 Garcia-Macia 2017 1 1 2.0 0.013 0.406 100%
50 Storz, Koetter, Setzer, and Westphal 2017 1 1 2.0 0.013 0.406 100%
51 Acharya, Borchert, Jager, and Steffen 2021 1 1 2.0 0.013 0.406 100%
52 Ferrando, Popov, and Udell 2019 1 1 2.0 0.013 0.406 100%
53 Chow and Teicher 1988 1 1 2.0 0.013 0.406 100%
Measures: Mentions = total in-text citations; Breadth = distinct sections; Sec. Wtd = section-weighted count (body ×2, lit review/appendix ×0.5); Share = mentions / total citations in paper; Composite = geometric mean of normalised count, breadth, and main-text ratio; Main % = fraction of mentions in main text (excl. appendix). (self) = self-citation.

Citation intensity data generated from LaTeX source analysis.