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.
Injective modules over Noetherian rings
1958436 citationsEben MatlisPacific Journal of Mathematicsprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
This map shows the geographic impact of Eben Matlis'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 Eben Matlis with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Eben Matlis more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Eben Matlis. 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 Eben Matlis. The network helps show where Eben Matlis may publish in the future.
Matlis, Eben. (1960). Divisible modules. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society. 11(3). 385–391.18 indexed citations
18.
Matlis, Eben. (1959). Applications of duality. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society. 10(4). 659–662.14 indexed citations
19.
Matlis, Eben. (1959). Applications of Duality. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society. 10(4). 659–659.3 indexed citations
20.
Matlis, Eben. (1958). Injective modules over Noetherian rings. Pacific Journal of Mathematics. 8(3). 511–528.436 indexed citations breakdown →
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.