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.
High-quality electron beams from a laser wakefield accelerator using plasma-channel guiding
20041.4k citationsC. G. R. Geddes, Csaba Tóth et al.profile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
This map shows the geographic impact of Eric Esarey'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 Eric Esarey with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Eric Esarey more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Eric Esarey. 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 Eric Esarey. The network helps show where Eric Esarey may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Eric Esarey
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Eric Esarey.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Eric Esarey 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 Eric Esarey. Eric Esarey is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Nakamura, K., Lieselotte Obst-Huebl, Tobias Ostermayr, et al.. (2021). IP2: High Intensity Experiment Platform at the BELLA Petawatt Laser. Bulletin of the American Physical Society.1 indexed citations
6.
Schumacher, Douglass, Lieselotte Obst-Huebl, Jianhui Bin, et al.. (2020). High Throughput and Contrast Enhancement from Ultrathin Liquid Crystal Films in a Double Plasma Mirror Configuration.. Bulletin of the American Physical Society. 2020.1 indexed citations
7.
Tilborg, J. van, Sam Barber, Hai-En Tsai, et al.. (2019). Progress towards BELLA Center's Laser-Plasma Accelerator based Free Electron Laser. APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting Abstracts. 2019.1 indexed citations
8.
Gonsalves, A. J., K. Nakamura, J. Daniëls, et al.. (2018). Progress on Petawatt level experiments at BELLA Center for electron acceleration. Bulletin of the American Physical Society. 2018.
Cormier‐Michel, E., David Bruhwiler, C. G. R. Geddes, et al.. (2010). PREDICTIVE DESIGN AND INTERPRETATION OF COLLIDING PULSE INJECTED LASER WAKEFIELD EXPERIMENTS. Bulletin of the American Physical Society. 52.1 indexed citations
Gonsalves, A. J., K. Nakamura, Csaba Tóth, et al.. (2007). Experimental Demonstration of 1 GeV Energy Gain in a Laser Wakefield Accelerator. Bulletin of the American Physical Society. 49.1 indexed citations
16.
Schroeder, C. B., W.M. Fawley, Eric Esarey, & Wim Leemans. (2006). Design of an XUV FEL Driven by the Laser-Plasma Accelerator at the LBNL LOASIS Facility. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.4 indexed citations
17.
Michel, P., C. B. Schroeder, B. A. Shadwick, Eric Esarey, & Wim Leemans. (2006). Radiative Damping in Plasma-Based Accelerators. AIP conference proceedings. 877. 554–560.1 indexed citations
Esarey, Eric, et al.. (1989). The laser wakefield accelerator. 12(4). 191–204.9 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.