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.
Technical aspects and challenges of colorimetric detection with microfluidic paper-based analytical devices (μPADs) - A review
Countries citing papers authored by Amanda M. Stockton
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Amanda M. Stockton'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 Amanda M. Stockton with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Amanda M. Stockton more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by Amanda M. Stockton
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Amanda M. Stockton. 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 Amanda M. Stockton. The network helps show where Amanda M. Stockton may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Amanda M. Stockton
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Amanda M. Stockton.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Amanda M. Stockton 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 Amanda M. Stockton. Amanda M. Stockton is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Casto-Boggess, Laura D., et al.. (2020). Maturation of Automated Microfluidic Organic Analyzers for Highly Sensitive and Selective Detection of Biosignatures in the Solar System. Lunar and Planetary Science Conference. 2713.1 indexed citations
Schmidt, B. E., Andrew Mullen, Julia Lutz, et al.. (2018). Life Under Ice: Antarctic Ocean World Analogs with HROV Icefin and RISE UP. AGUFM. 2018.4 indexed citations
11.
Phillips-Lander, C. M., et al.. (2017). Light, Temperature, and Nutrient Availability Influence Microbial Colonization of Lava Caves. Lunar and Planetary Science Conference. 1667.1 indexed citations
12.
Schmidt, B. E., et al.. (2017). What's Cooler Than Being Cool? Icefin: Robotic Exploration Beneath Antarctic Ice Shelves. AGUFM. 2017.
13.
Morbioli, Giorgio Gianini, Thiago Mazzu-Nascimento, Amanda M. Stockton, & Emanuel Carrilho. (2017). Technical aspects and challenges of colorimetric detection with microfluidic paper-based analytical devices (μPADs) - A review. Analytica Chimica Acta. 970. 1–22.342 indexed citations breakdown →
14.
Butterworth, A. L., et al.. (2016). Instrument for Capturing and Analyzing Trace Organic Molecules from Plumes for Ocean Worlds Missions. LPICo. 1980. 4100.
15.
Butterworth, A. L., Amanda M. Stockton, P. Turin, et al.. (2015). Lab-on-a-Chip Organic Analyzer: Instrumentation and Methods for Detecting Trace Organic Molecules and Amino Acid Chirality in Planetary Science. Lunar and Planetary Science Conference. 2813.1 indexed citations
16.
Stockton, Amanda M., Jungkyu Kim, Peter A. Willis, et al.. (2014). The Mars Organic Analyzer: Instrumentation and Methods for Detecting Trace Organic Molecules in our Solar System. 1791. 1171.1 indexed citations
17.
Willis, Peter A., Amanda M. Stockton, María F. Mora, et al.. (2012). Planetary In Situ Capillary Electrophoresis System (PISCES). LPICo. 1683. 1038.3 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.