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.
3D bioactive composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering
20171.0k citationsGareth Turnbull, Jon Clarke et al.Bioactive Materialsprofile →
Digital twin assisted surgery, concept, opportunities, and challenges
202518 citationsXichun Luo, Asimina Kazakidi et al.npj Digital Medicineprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
This map shows the geographic impact of F. Picard'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. Picard with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites F. Picard more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by F. Picard. 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. Picard. The network helps show where F. Picard may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of F. Picard
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of F. Picard.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of F. Picard 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. Picard. F. Picard is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Turnbull, Gareth, Jon Clarke, F. Picard, et al.. (2017). 3D bioactive composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Bioactive Materials. 3(3). 278–314.1023 indexed citations breakdown →
6.
Picard, F., Jess H. Lonner, Brian Hamlin, et al.. (2014). THE ACCURACY OF A ROBOTICALLY-CONTROLLED FREEHAND SCULPTING TOOL FOR UNICONDYLAR KNEE ARTHROPLASTY. Strathprints: The University of Strathclyde institutional repository (University of Strathclyde). 12–12.6 indexed citations
7.
Gregori, Andrea, F. Picard, Johan Bellemans, et al.. (2014). THE LEARNING CURVE OF A NOVEL HANDHELD ROBOTIC SYSTEM FOR UNICONDYLAR KNEE ARTHROPLASTY. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-british Volume. 13–13.6 indexed citations
8.
Laperche, Blandine, Sophie Boutillier, & F. Picard. (2014). Le développement des systèmes produits-services dans les entreprises : une étape vers l’économie de la fonctionnalité ?. 48(4).1 indexed citations
Clarke, Jon, A.H. Deakin, F. Picard, & Philip Riches. (2011). THE EFFECT OF WEIGHT-BEARING ON TIBIOFEMORAL ALIGNMENT IN ASYMPTOMATIC, OSTEOARTHRITIC AND PROSTHETIC KNEES. Strathprints: The University of Strathclyde institutional repository (University of Strathclyde). 39–39.3 indexed citations
14.
Wilson, William, A.H. Deakin, F. Picard, Philip Riches, & Jon Clarke. (2011). STANDARDISING THE ASSESSMENT OF CORONAL KNEE LAXITY. Strathprints: The University of Strathclyde institutional repository (University of Strathclyde). 9–9.1 indexed citations
Delp, Scott L., David Stulberg, Brian Davies, F. Picard, & François Leitner. (1998). Computer Assisted Knee Replacement. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. 354(354). 49–56.244 indexed citations
20.
Jastrzębski, J., et al.. (1963). ANGULAR DISTRIBUTIONS IN O$sup 16$(d,$alpha$)N$sup 14$ AND C$sup 12$(d,$alpha$)B$sup 10$ REACTIONS. Nuclear Physics A.5 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.