CiteRank AI: How to Measure Whether AI Engines Actually Recommend Your Brand

Introduction

Ask ChatGPT to recommend a project-management tool. Ask Gemini which CRM suits a 20-person sales team. Ask Perplexity for the best PG accommodation near Panathur.

Each time, something decisive happens that no keyword rank tracker records: a model names three or four brands, in an order, with a tone — and silently omits everyone else. There is no page two, no impression count. For the brands not named, the outcome isn't a low ranking. It's absence.

That is the measurement gap. Legacy SEO suites were built for ten blue links, where position and click-through were the currency. Discovery increasingly happens inside a generated answer, where the currency is whether you get cited, where in the answer, and how you're characterised.

The shift isn't anecdotal. Pew Research Center tracked 68,879 Google searches by 900 US adults across March 2025 and found 18% of those searches produced an AI summary. Users who saw one clicked a traditional result in 8% of visits, versus 15% when no summary appeared — and clicked a link inside the summary in just 1% (Pew Research Center, July 2025). Note the sample: this is one panel of US users, not all of Google.

This article covers what CiteRank AI is, how its measurement works, how it differs from rank tracking and from lighter AI-mention checkers, where it is genuinely unreliable, and how a team would actually run it. Product claims come from CiteRank's published documentation; claims about AI search behaviour are sourced to primary research and labelled where they are interpretation rather than fact.

What Is CiteRank AI?

CiteRank AI is a revenue-intelligence platform for AI search. It replays buyer-intent prompts across eight AI engines many times over, detects whether and how a brand is cited in the answers, compresses that into a 0–100 visibility score with a confidence band, benchmarks it against competitors, and connects movements in that score to sessions, sign-ups and pipeline via GA4, Search Console and HubSpot.

Featured-snippet answer:

The problem it solves is narrow: you cannot manage a channel you cannot measure, and AI answers are a channel with no native reporting. Google's generative AI report in Search Console covers Google's surfaces only — nothing about ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, Copilot, Grok or Meta AI. Server logs show referral traffic after a citation earns a click, which per Pew is rare. Neither answers the question that matters: when a buyer asks, are you in the answer?

The engines tracked, per CiteRank's own site, are ChatGPT, Google Gemini, Anthropic Claude, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews, Microsoft Copilot, xAI Grok and Meta AI (CiteRank methodology).

Why "the prompt" is the unit of analysis

A keyword is a fragment someone once typed into a search box. A prompt is a full question with context, constraints and intent — "we're a 40-person B2B SaaS in India, which CRM should we use if we already run HubSpot marketing?" Two prompts can share every keyword and return entirely different brand lists, because the model reasons over the whole request.

Scoring against keywords therefore misses the variance that decides visibility. Scoring against a structured set of prompts, tagged by buying stage, captures it. The academic work on this surface treats the prompt-and-response as the right object of study: the paper that formalised generative engine optimization built a benchmark of user queries and measured source visibility within generated responses, not rankings (Aggarwal et al., GEO: Generative Engine Optimization, KDD 2024).

How Does CiteRank AI Work?

In plain language

To learn whether a restaurant gets recommended in your neighbourhood, you could ask one person once — or ask 200 people, noting who each named first, second and third, whether they sounded positive, and whether the answers agreed. The second is a measurement. The first is an anecdote. CiteRank does the second thing, to AI engines, on a schedule.

The six-step methodology

1. Prompt graph generation. A category-specific prompt set is generated from the brand's industry, sub-vertical, geography and competitor set. Each prompt is tagged by intent — discovery, comparison, evaluation or conversion — so bottom-of-funnel prompts count for more.

2. Multi-LLM execution. Every prompt is replayed 10–30 times per engine across all eight engines. This is not padding: LLM inference endpoints are non-deterministic even at temperature 0. In one demonstration, 1,000 temperature-0 completions from a single model produced 80 unique outputs, because kernel results vary with server batch size and load (Horace He, Thinking Machines Lab, Sept 2025). A single-shot "does ChatGPT mention us" check is a coin flip reported as a fact.

3. Citation detection and entity matching. Each response is parsed for explicit citations (URLs, source cards), inline brand mentions and entity-level references. Near-duplicates and corporate aliases resolve to one entity — "CiteRank", "CiteRank AI" and the .in domain collapse into a single brand — and competitor conflation is flagged.

4. Composite visibility scoring. Four components — citation share, recommendation order, sentiment and answer volatility — combine into one 0–100 score per engine, weighted by each prompt's intent value and reported with a 95% confidence band.

5. Competitor benchmarking and gap-fix briefs. Every brand score has matched competitor scores. Where you lose, the output is a brief: the prompts you miss, the sources cited instead of you, and the entity, schema or content changes that would close the gap.

6. Re-runs and attribution. Runs repeat weekly by default, daily on higher tiers. Optional GA4, Search Console and HubSpot connections tie visibility shifts to sessions, conversions and deals.

These six steps are as published on CiteRank's methodology page. The competitive view is surfaced in-product as the Rival Heatgrid, which the product pages list as a higher-tier feature.

A short worked illustration

Take the prompt "best GEO tool for a B2B SaaS company in India", replayed 20 times on one engine. Your brand appears in 12 of 20 responses (citation share 60%); its mean position when named is 2.4 of roughly four brands; sentiment skews positive with one hedge; and presence flips on and off across replays, indicating moderate volatility.

Those four facts become one score with an interval — say 68 (± 7). The interval is the honest part: it tells you a rival at 72 is not reliably ahead of you.

The Scoring Model: What Is and Isn't Public

Here precision matters more than marketing.

Publicly stated: the four score components (citation share, recommendation order, sentiment, answer volatility), the 0–100 range, the intent-weighting principle, the 10–30 replay range, and the 95% confidence band.

Not on the public methodology page: the exact arithmetic — component coefficients, intent weights, and the interval estimator. CiteRank's stated commitment is that the formula and weights are published in-product to customers rather than on the marketing site. Practically: ask to see the formula during a trial, and expect to be able to reconstruct any score you're shown.

A conceptual form of the composite, for readers who want the shape rather than the constants:

Visibility(engine) = 100 × Σ_p w_intent(p) × [ β₁·Share(p) + β₂·OrderScore(p)
                                              + β₃·Sentiment(p) + β₄·Stability(p) ]
                     ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
                                        Σ_p w_intent(p)

• p — a prompt in the graph
• w_intent(p) — weight from the prompt's buying-stage tag (conversion > evaluation > comparison > discovery)
• Share(p) — fraction of replays in which the brand is cited or mentioned, 0–1
• OrderScore(p) — normalised recommendation position; first mention scores highest
• Sentiment(p) — normalised tone of the mention, 0–1
• Stability(p) — 1 − volatility; how consistent presence is across replays
• β₁…β₄ — component coefficients, published in-product

Confidence bands on a metric derived from repeated sampling are conventionally computed by bootstrapping over the replay set — resampling the 10–30 observed responses to get an empirical distribution of the score. That is the standard method here; confirm the specific implementation in-product rather than assuming it.

CiteRank AI vs. Traditional Keyword Rank Tracking

The two are complementary, not substitutes. AI search is a separate surface with its own signals, and a keyword tool does not audit it.

Versus other things people compare it to

• One-shot AI mention checkers. Ask ChatGPT once, screenshot the answer. Fine as a gut check; not a measurement, for the non-determinism reason above.
• Brand-mention / social listening. Tracks what humans say about you. A different object — it doesn't tell you what a model recommends.
• Search Console's generative AI report. Authoritative for Google's own Search surfaces, and free. Silent on the other seven engines.
• Profound. The alternative most often named in this category. CiteRank's own site emphasises engine breadth, replay depth, published scoring and revenue attribution as its differentiators; that is CiteRank's framing, not a neutral head-to-head, so buyers should trial both rather than take either vendor's word.
• Domain authority scores. Third-party link-strength estimates. An input at best, not a measure of AI recommendation.

Benefits

You find out you're invisible before your pipeline tells you. The failure mode in AI search is silent — no ranking drop, no traffic alert, just a competitor named in answers where you aren't. Monitoring turns that into an event you can respond to.

Fixes get prioritised by expected lift, not habit. A gap-fix brief names the prompts you lose, the sources cited instead, and the specific entity/schema/content change. That's a different artifact from a generic SEO to-do list.

Hallucinations about your own brand become findable. Not a hypothetical risk: an EBU/BBC study of over 3,000 AI responses across 22 public-service broadcasters, 18 countries and 14 languages found 45% had at least one significant issue, with 31% showing serious sourcing problems and 20% containing major accuracy issues (EBU, October 2025). If engines misattribute news at that rate, they misstate your pricing too.

The channel gets a monetary value. Attribution is the part that survives a CFO conversation — and it matters because AI referral traffic behaves unusually. Ahrefs reported on its own property that AI search drove 0.5% of traffic but 12.1% of sign-ups over 30 days, a ~23× conversion differential, while noting the same modelling suggests AI users click through roughly 75% less often (Ahrefs, June 2025). Single-property vendor data, not a controlled study: treat the direction as interesting and the magnitude as unverified.

Entity clarity compounds. When a model conflates you with a competitor, every downstream answer inherits the error. Fixing the entity picture is durable rather than per-page.

Limitations and Potential Biases

A measurement company that hides its error bars deserves the scepticism it gets. The honest list:

No visibility into engine internals. CiteRank observes outputs; it cannot see how any model ranks or selects sources. Google says so explicitly: "Be wary of third-party tools that promise ranking success or claim to use 'internal' Google metrics" (Google Search Central). That warning is correct and every AI-visibility vendor should be held to it. Observed-output measurement is legitimate; claimed internal access is not.

Sampling error persists even at 30 replays. Where your presence is genuinely marginal, 30 samples still leaves a wide interval — which is why the band exists, and why small week-on-week moves should be ignored.

Personalisation, geography and account state. Answers vary by location, logged-in history, memory features and A/B-tested surfaces. A harness runs under one configuration, not yours or your buyer's. Results are representative, not universal.

Model and product churn. Engines ship new model versions and answer surfaces constantly, so a score change may reflect the instrument changing rather than your brand. Cadence-based re-measurement needs a comparability check before movements are read as performance.

Prompt-graph selection bias. The graph is the instrument. Over-weight prompts you happen to win and the score flatters you; miss how buyers actually phrase things and it understates you. The graph should be reviewed with the customer, not delivered as a black box.

Language and market coverage. Engine behaviour differs across languages and territories — the EBU study found consistent distortion patterns across 14 languages but wide per-assistant variation (Gemini: significant issues in 76% of responses). Non-English and India-specific coverage should be validated, not assumed.

Category thinness. Where engines don't name vendors at all, because the retrieval corpus is thin, scores are low and noisy for everyone and the metric carries little information.

Correlation is not attribution. Tying a visibility rise to a pipeline rise is a join across GA4, Search Console and CRM data. It is suggestive. Isolating causation needs holdouts or staged rollouts, which most brands won't run.

Google's contrarian position on tactics. Worth quoting, because it cuts against much GEO marketing: Google states that "structured data isn't required for generative AI search" and that its AI features are "rooted in our core Search ranking and quality systems", and it lists LLMS.txt files, special AI markup, content chunking and rewriting-for-AI among tactics to ignore (Google Search Central). Interpretation, not fact: that is Google's own account of Google's surfaces. Other engines differ, and structured data retains independent value for entity clarity and rich results. But any GEO recommendation contradicting a platform's published guidance should come with a reason.

Who Should Use CiteRank AI?

Founders and in-house marketing teams needing a first honest read on whether they exist in AI answers. Start narrow: a few engines, the prompts closest to purchase.

Marketing and growth teams treating AI search as a revenue channel — the group that needs daily monitoring, all eight engines, Slack alerting and the attribution joins wired up.

Agencies running visibility programs across clients, where multi-workspace, white-label reporting and bulk export matter more than any single feature.

Data and analytics teams, who will care about one thing first: how the interval is computed. If that answer satisfies, the rest is usable. If not, no dashboard rescues it.

PR and comms, for hallucination and pricing-accuracy monitoring. Wrong prices repeated by an engine are a brand-risk problem before a marketing one.

Not a good fit: anyone wanting a guaranteed ranking outcome, anyone in a category too thin for engines to name vendors, and anyone needing causal proof rather than a well-instrumented correlation.

How to Use CiteRank AI: A Practical Workflow

Prerequisites: your brand's canonical facts (legal name, aliases, domains, current pricing), a competitor list, your priority geographies and sub-verticals, and — for attribution — admin access to GA4, Search Console and your CRM.

1. Start the trial and run a baseline audit. The trial is 14 days, no credit card. Get a first read before changing anything.
2. Build the prompt graph, then argue with it. Check the generated prompts against how buyers actually talk. Add the phrasings sales hears on calls; cut prompts no real buyer would ask. This step decides whether every later number means anything.
3. Check the intent tags. Confirm conversion- and evaluation-stage prompts outweigh discovery ones, and that the split matches your funnel.
4. Read the baseline as a range. Note the score and the band per engine. The band is your significance threshold for every future review.
5. Look at competitors per prompt cluster, not in aggregate. Aggregate share hides the pattern; you'll usually find you lose one cluster badly and win elsewhere.
6. Pull the gap-fix briefs and check the cited sources. The most actionable finding is often not about your site at all — it's which third-party page the engine trusts instead of you.
7. Verify AI crawlers can reach you. Table stakes, frequently broken. OpenAI runs distinct bots for distinct purposes: OAI-SearchBot surfaces sites in ChatGPT search results, while GPTBot is for model training. Block the wrong one and you lose search visibility (OpenAI crawler documentation).
8. Ship two or three fixes, not twenty — otherwise the next re-run is uninterpretable.
9. Set alert thresholds above your noise floor, based on the confidence band, or you'll train the team to ignore alerts.
10. Connect GA4, Search Console and the CRM early; wait for enough data before believing the attribution chart.
11. Review on cadence with a comparability check. Before crediting a move to your work, confirm no engine or model version changed underneath the measurement.

Common workflow mistakes: accepting the prompt graph unexamined; reacting to sub-interval moves; changing many things at once; comparing scores across engines as if they share a scale; and quoting one dramatic AI answer as evidence.

Illustrative Example: Same Mentions, Different Scores

Two competing tools, Brand A and Brand B, are each mentioned in 12 of 20 replays of the same prompt on the same engine. Raw mention count is identical. The scores are not.

Two things to take from this. First, order and tone carry real weight — being named last as an afterthought is not the same outcome as being named first with a reason, even though both count as "a mention." Second, Brand B's wider interval is itself the finding: its visibility is unstable, so a single check would have reported anything from "we're doing fine" to "we've vanished" depending on which replay you happened to see.

A one-shot checker would have reported these two brands as tied.

Best Practices

• Treat the interval as part of the metric. Report "68 ± 7", never "68". A score without an interval invites false precision.
• Version your scoring. If the formula is published to customers, changing it is effectively a public API change — version, document and back-test it.
• Label illustrative data as illustrative. Sample dashboards using synthetic numbers must say so; customer reports should use only that customer's real runs.
• Fix the entity before the content. If models conflate you with a rival, page-level work sits on a broken foundation.
• Follow platform guidance where it exists. Google publishes what it says works for its AI surfaces. Where a GEO tactic contradicts that, have a reason ready.
• Keep the brand fact ledger current. Hallucination and pricing-accuracy monitoring is only as good as your ground truth. Conflicting facts on your own site produce conflicting facts in AI answers.
• Instrument attribution early, interpret it late. Connect the data sources in week one; don't present the causal story until the sample supports it.

Common Mistakes

Treating a single AI answer as data. The most common error, and the reason replay counts exist.

Chasing the score itself. The score is an instrument reading; recommendation share on prompts that convert is the objective.

Comparing scores across engines. Each engine has its own answer format, source behaviour and citation conventions. Track each engine against itself.

Assuming AI visibility inherits from SEO rankings. Related, not identical. Google says its AI features run on core Search systems — but that covers Google's surfaces, and six of the eight engines here aren't Google's at all.

Blocking the crawler that matters. Teams block GPTBot to opt out of training, assume AI bots are handled, and never examine OAI-SearchBot — the one governing ChatGPT search visibility.

Reading small moves as signal. If the band is ±7, a 3-point move is noise.

Over-claiming in client reporting. In a category built on measurement credibility, one unsupported number costs more than a flat month.

The Future of AI Search Measurement

The following is analysis and forecasting, not established fact.

Standardisation pressure will arrive. Every vendor currently defines "AI visibility" differently, making cross-tool comparison meaningless. Expect movement toward shared definitions of citation share and recommendation order — and expect vendors with published formulas to be better positioned when it happens.

First-party reporting will expand and stay partial. Google has shipped generative AI reporting in Search Console; other engines may follow. None will hand over competitors' data, which is where third-party measurement keeps its reason to exist.

Attribution gets harder before it gets easier. As more engines answer without linking out, the click — the thing analytics can see — becomes rarer, pushing measurement toward modelled and survey-based methods with wider uncertainty.

Agentic buying changes the object of measurement. If an agent shortlists vendors on a buyer's behalf, the thing to measure is inclusion in agent-generated shortlists, not citation in prose. The prompt-as-unit framing extends to that; keyword frameworks don't.

The Gartner cautionary tale. In February 2024 Gartner predicted search engine volume would fall 25% by 2026 due to AI chatbots (Gartner). The prediction was contested from the outset — Search Engine Land questioned the mechanism and the magnitude at the time (Search Engine Land, 2024) — and by mid-2026 whether a fall of that scale has materialised remains disputed. The lesson isn't that AI search doesn't matter; Pew's click data says it does. It's that confident predictions about this surface age badly, which argues for measuring your own position over trusting category forecasts.

Frequently Asked Questions

All answers below are 46–53 words, sized for FAQ schema and featured-snippet eligibility.

What is CiteRank AI?

CiteRank AI is a revenue-intelligence platform for AI search. It measures whether AI engines including ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Perplexity and Google AI Overviews recommend a brand when buyers ask, scores that visibility from 0 to 100 per engine, benchmarks it against competitors, and connects visibility changes to traffic, sign-ups and pipeline.

How is the CiteRank AI visibility score calculated?

Four components combine into a single 0–100 score per engine: citation share, recommendation order, sentiment and answer volatility. Each prompt is weighted by its buying-stage intent, so conversion-stage prompts count more than discovery ones. Scores are averaged across 10–30 replays per engine and reported with a 95% confidence band.

Is CiteRank AI the same as the CiteRank citation algorithm?

No. They share a name only. The 2007 CiteRank is an academic algorithm for ranking scientific publications using a traffic model over citation networks, published by Walker, Xie, Yan and Maslov in J. Stat. Mech. CiteRank AI is a 2026 commercial platform measuring brand visibility inside AI search engines.

Why does CiteRank AI replay each prompt 10–30 times?

Because LLM outputs are non-deterministic — the same prompt can produce different answers even at temperature 0, largely because inference results vary with server batch size and load. A single query is a sample of one. Replaying 10–30 times per engine produces a stable estimate and lets a confidence interval be computed.

How is CiteRank AI different from keyword rank tracking?

Rank tracking measures a URL's position in a list of links for a keyword. CiteRank measures whether a brand is named inside a generated answer to a prompt, where in that answer, and how it's characterised. The surfaces, the sampling requirements and the definition of winning are all different. They're complementary, not substitutes.

Which AI engines does CiteRank AI track?

Eight, per its published methodology: ChatGPT, Google Gemini, Anthropic Claude, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews, Microsoft Copilot, xAI Grok and Meta AI. Engine coverage varies by plan — lower tiers cover three engines while higher tiers cover all eight. Check the current pricing page, as coverage and tiers change during beta.

Is CiteRank AI free?

No. There is a 14-day free trial with no credit card required, then a paid subscription with tiered plans in dual INR/USD pricing, starting at $99 / ₹7,999 per month on the pricing page. Confirm current prices and any minimum commitment term directly with CiteRank, since beta pricing and packaging are still changing.

Can I use CiteRank AI to see what competitors are doing in AI search?

Yes — competitive benchmarking is a core function. It produces side-by-side recommendation share against your competitor set, per engine and per prompt cluster, surfaced in-product as the Rival Heatgrid on higher tiers. It also discovers rivals you didn't list, by identifying which brands engines actually name.

How reliable are AI visibility scores?

Reliable within a stated interval, which is why the confidence band matters. They are estimates from sampled engine outputs, affected by personalisation, geography, model version changes and prompt-graph design. Treat movements smaller than the confidence band as noise, and validate the prompt graph before trusting any absolute number.

Can AI visibility be manipulated or gamed?

Partly, and that's a real limitation. Published research shows content-side optimisation can raise source visibility in generated answers by up to 40% in benchmark conditions. Engines also change constantly, so tactics decay. Google explicitly warns against artificial mentions and AI-specific markup tricks for its own surfaces.

What are the main limitations of CiteRank AI?

It cannot see inside any engine — it measures observed outputs only. Sampling error persists even at 30 replays. Personalisation and geography make results representative rather than universal. Model updates can move scores independently of your brand. And attribution shows correlation with pipeline, not proven causation.

Do I need structured data to appear in AI answers?

Google states structured data isn't required for its generative AI features and that no special AI markup exists. It remains useful for rich results and for helping models resolve your brand entity correctly, and other engines behave differently from Google. Treat it as a clarity investment, not a guaranteed lever.

Conclusion

The insight worth carrying out of this article: AI search visibility is a sampling problem, not a ranking problem. Because engines answer non-deterministically, anything short of repeated measurement with a stated interval is anecdote wearing the costume of data. That's the gap CiteRank AI is built for — and the standard by which it, and every competitor, should be judged.

It is most useful when three conditions hold: your buyers plausibly ask AI engines about your category, competitors could be named instead of you, and someone on your team will act on a gap-fix brief. It is least useful in thin categories, and it is not a source of causal proof.

To find out where you actually stand, run the 14-day trial, build the prompt graph against how your buyers really talk, and read the first score with its confidence band. Then decide whether the gaps are worth closing.

About the author

Written by a quantitative analyst and technical operator based in Bengaluru with 15+ years in NSE/BSE markets and a hands-on background in building measurement systems — including multi-provider LLM orchestration, sampling design and reproducible scoring pipelines. This article draws on primary documentation and peer-reviewed and institutional research, cited inline. The author has a commercial interest in CiteRank AI; product claims are sourced to CiteRank's published documentation and limitations are stated explicitly so readers can judge them independently.

Last reviewed: 30 July 2026.

Sources

1. Aggarwal, P., Murahari, V., Rajpurohit, T., Kalyan, A., Narasimhan, K., & Deshpande, A. (2024). GEO: Generative Engine Optimization. KDD 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.09735
2. Pew Research Center (22 July 2025). Google users are less likely to click on links when an AI summary appears in the results. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/07/22/google-users-are-less-likely-to-click-on-links-when-an-ai-summary-appears-in-the-results/
3. European Broadcasting Union / BBC (22 October 2025). AI assistants misrepresent news content 45% of the time. https://www.ebu.ch/news/2025/10/ai-s-systemic-distortion-of-news-is-consistent-across-languages-and-territories-international-study-by-public-service-broadcaste
4. He, H. (10 September 2025). Defeating Nondeterminism in LLM Inference. Thinking Machines Lab. https://thinkingmachines.ai/blog/defeating-nondeterminism-in-llm-inference/
5. Google Search Central. Google's Guide to Optimizing for Generative AI Features on Google Search. https://developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/ai-optimization-guide
6. OpenAI. Bots and crawlers documentation (GPTBot, OAI-SearchBot, ChatGPT-User). https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/bots
7. Ahrefs (16 June 2025). AI search visitors convert at a 23x higher rate than organic search visitors. https://ahrefs.com/blog/ai-search-traffic-conversions-ahrefs/ — vendor first-party data on a single property; directional only
8. Gartner (19 February 2024). Gartner Predicts Search Engine Volume Will Drop 25% by 2026, Due to AI Chatbots and Other Virtual Agents. https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2024-02-19-gartner-predicts-search-engine-volume-will-drop-25-percent-by-2026-due-to-ai-chatbots-and-other-virtual-agents
9. Schwartz, B. / Search Engine Land (2024). Will traffic from search engines fall 25% by 2026? https://searchengineland.com/search-engine-traffic-2026-prediction-437650 — contemporaneous critique of the Gartner forecast
10. Walker, D., Xie, H., Yan, K.-K., & Maslov, S. (2007). Ranking scientific publications using a model of network traffic. J. Stat. Mech. P06010. Preprint: https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612122 — disambiguation only; unrelated to CiteRank AI
11. Angiulli, F., Fassetti, F., & Serrao, C. (2022). CiteRank: A Method to Evaluate Researchers Influence Based on Citation and Collaboration Networks. In New Trends in Database and Information Systems (ADBIS 2022), Springer. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-15743-1_37 — disambiguation only
12. CiteRank AI. Homepage. https://www.citerank.in
13. CiteRank AI. Methodology. https://www.citerank.in/methodology
14. CiteRank AI. Pricing. https://www.citerank.in/pricing