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.
Identification of genetic factors contributing to heterosis in a hybrid from two elite maize inbred lines using molecular markers.
1992667 citationsC. W. Stuber, Stephen E. Lincoln et al.Geneticsprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
This map shows the geographic impact of C. W. Stuber'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 C. W. Stuber with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites C. W. Stuber more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by C. W. Stuber. 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 C. W. Stuber. The network helps show where C. W. Stuber may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of C. W. Stuber
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of C. W. Stuber.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of C. W. Stuber 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 C. W. Stuber. C. W. Stuber is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
All Works
20 of 20 papers shown
1.
Goodman, M. M. & C. W. Stuber. (2007). RACIAL DIVERSITY OF MAIZE IN BRAZIL AND ADJACENT AREAS 1. Maydica. 52(1). 13–30.15 indexed citations
2.
Stuber, C. W., et al.. (2000). Isozymatic diversity in the races of maize of the Americas.. Maydica. 45(3). 185–203.22 indexed citations
Stuber, C. W., Stephen E. Lincoln, Dennis W. Wolff, T. Helentjaris, & Eric S. Lander. (1992). Identification of genetic factors contributing to heterosis in a hybrid from two elite maize inbred lines using molecular markers.. Genetics. 132(3). 823–839.667 indexed citations breakdown →
Sisco, Paul H., Jonathan F. Wendel, & C. W. Stuber. (1987). Acp4 Is the Most Distal Marker on Chromosome lL. Iowa State University Digital Repository (Iowa State University). 61. 86–86.1 indexed citations
Wendel, Jonathan F., C. W. Stuber, & M. M. Goodman. (1985). Twelve New Isozyme Loci in Maize: Progress Report on Chromosomal Locations, the Subunit Composition, and Subcellular Localization of Their Products. 59.2 indexed citations
11.
Wendel, Jonathan F., C. W. Stuber, & M. M. Goodman. (1985). Mapping Data for 34 Isozyme Loci Currently Being Studied. 59.12 indexed citations
Stuber, C. W. & M. M. Goodman. (1984). Inheritance, intracellular localization, and genetic variation of 6-phosphogluconate dehydrogenase isozymes in maize. Maydica. 29(4). 453–471.11 indexed citations
14.
Stuber, C. W. & M. M. Goodman. (1980). Genetics of 6-PGD isozymes in corn..1 indexed citations
15.
Goodman, M. M., Kathleen J. Newton, & C. W. Stuber. (1980). Viable cytosolic MDH nulls and lethality associated with mitochondrial MDH nulls in maize.. Genetics. 94.1 indexed citations
16.
Goodman, M. M., C. W. Stuber, & Kathleen J. Newton. (1980). Linkage of enzyme loci in maize.. Genetics. 94.1 indexed citations
17.
Stuber, C. W. & M. M. Goodman. (1980). Genetics of IDH isozymes in corn..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.