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.
The State and Fate of Himalayan Glaciers
20121.6k citationsTobias Bolch, Andreas Kääb et al.profile →
Global glacier mass changes and their contributions to sea-level rise from 1961 to 2016
2019703 citationsMichael Zemp, Matthias Huss et al.Natureprofile →
On the accuracy of glacier outlines derived from remote-sensing data
2013422 citationsF. Paul, Nicholas E. Barrand et al.Annals of Glaciologyprofile →
Author Peers
Peers are selected by citation overlap in the author's most active subfields.
citations ·
hero ref
This map shows the geographic impact of F. Paul'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 F. Paul with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites F. Paul more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by F. Paul. 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 F. Paul. The network helps show where F. Paul may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of F. Paul
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of F. Paul.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of F. Paul 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 F. Paul. F. Paul 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.
Zemp, Michael, Matthias Huss, Emmanuel Thibert, et al.. (2019). Global glacier mass changes and their contributions to sea-level rise from 1961 to 2016. Nature. 568(7752). 382–386.703 indexed citations breakdown →
Ticconi, Francesca, et al.. (2013). Preliminary Results on Algorithm and Sensor Comparisons for the Estimation of Surface Elevation Changes over Ice Caps Using Altimetry Data. 710. 100.
Paul, F., Nicholas E. Barrand, Sabine Baumann, et al.. (2013). On the accuracy of glacier outlines derived from remote-sensing data. Annals of Glaciology. 54(63). 171–182.422 indexed citations breakdown →
7.
Linsbauer, Andreas, F. Paul, & Wilfried Haeberli. (2012). Comparing different methods to model scenarios of future glacier change for the entire Swiss Alps. EGUGA. 12916.2 indexed citations
Paul, F., Holger Frey, Wilfried Haeberli, et al.. (2010). Guidelines for the compilation of glacier inventory data from digital sources.13 indexed citations
12.
Zemp, M., Bruce Raup, R. L. Armstrong, et al.. (2009). Integration of glacier databases within the Global Terrestrial Network for Glaciers (GTN-G). EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts. 4582.1 indexed citations
Paul, F., et al.. (2003). Glacier monitoring from Landsat TM: problems and perspectives. EAEJA. 4417.1 indexed citations
19.
Paul, F., et al.. (2001). Comparison of TM Derived Glacier Areas With Higher Resolution Data Sets. AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts. 2001.60 indexed citations
20.
Kääb, Andreas, et al.. (2001). Glacier Monitoring From ASTER Imagery: Accuracy and Applications. EGS General Assembly Conference Abstracts. 2001. 2135.91 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.