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.
DOPHOT, a CCD photometry program: Description and tests
1993406 citationsAbhijit Saha et al.Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacificprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
This map shows the geographic impact of Abhijit Saha'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 Abhijit Saha with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Abhijit Saha more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Abhijit Saha. 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 Abhijit Saha. The network helps show where Abhijit Saha may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Abhijit Saha
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Abhijit Saha.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Abhijit Saha 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 Abhijit Saha. Abhijit Saha is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Lee, Chien‐Hsiu, et al.. (2019). Confirmation of the 2019 nova outburst from RN M31N 1960-12a/2013-05b. The astronomer's telegram. 12943. 1.1 indexed citations
10.
McKinnon, Kevin, Chien‐Hsiu Lee, Puragra Guhathakurta, et al.. (2019). Spectroscopic observation of the superoutburst from HP Cet (ZTF19abydbvw) dwarf nova. The astronomer's telegram. 13183. 1.
11.
Silva, David R., Robert Blum, Shadab Alam, et al.. (2016). The Mayall z-band Legacy Survey. 228.2 indexed citations
Saha, Abhijit, et al.. (2013). Optimization of machining parameters of turning operations based on multi performance criteria. SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología.3 indexed citations
14.
Saha, Abhijit, Stephen T. Ridgway, K. H. Cook, et al.. (2013). Advancing the LSST Operations Simulator. AAS. 221.2 indexed citations
15.
Strauss, Michael A., J. A. Tyson, Donald W. Sweeney, et al.. (2010). LSST Observatory System and Science Opportunities. 215.1 indexed citations
Massey, Philip, P. W. Hodge, S. Holmes, et al.. (2002). A Survey of the Local Group Galaxies Currently Forming Stars. AAS. 201.1 indexed citations
18.
Ferrarese, Laura, J. R. Mould, R. C. Kennicutt, et al.. (1999). The Calibration of Population II Secondary Distance Indicators and the Value of the Hubble Constant. AAS. 194.2 indexed citations
19.
Ferrarese, Laura, Fabio Bresolin, Robert C. Kennicutt, et al.. (1998). The HST Key Project on the Extragalactic Distance Scale. The Astrophysical Journal.2 indexed citations
20.
Kelson, D. D., G. D. Illingworth, Wendy L. Freedman, et al.. (1994). The Discovery of Cepheids and a New Distance to M101 Using the Hubble Space Telescope. AAS. 185.2 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.