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.
Botulinum Toxin as a Biological Weapon
20011.3k citationsS. S. Arnon, Robert Schechter et al.JAMAprofile →
Smallpox as a Biological Weapon
19991.2k citationsThomas V. Inglesby, John G. Bartlett et al.JAMAprofile →
Tularemia as a Biological Weapon
20011.0k citationsDavid T. Dennis, Thomas V. Inglesby et al.JAMAprofile →
Anthrax as a Biological Weapon, 2002
2002729 citationsThomas V. Inglesby, Tara O’Toole et al.JAMAprofile →
Plague as a Biological Weapon
2000708 citationsThomas V. Inglesby, David T. Dennis et al.JAMAprofile →
Anthrax as a Biological Weapon
1999625 citationsThomas V. Inglesby, Donald A. Henderson et al.JAMAprofile →
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 Gerald Parker'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 Gerald Parker with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Gerald Parker more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Gerald Parker. 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 Gerald Parker. The network helps show where Gerald Parker may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Gerald Parker
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Gerald Parker.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Gerald Parker 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 Gerald Parker. Gerald Parker is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Inglesby, Thomas V., Tara O’Toole, Donald A. Henderson, et al.. (2002). Anthrax as a Biological Weapon, 2002. JAMA. 287(17). 2236–2236.729 indexed citations breakdown →
6.
Arnon, Stephen S., Robert Schechter, Thomas V. Inglesby, et al.. (2001). Botulinum toxin as a biological weapon. JAMA. 285(8).95 indexed citations
7.
Arnon, S. S., Robert Schechter, Thomas V. Inglesby, et al.. (2001). Botulinum Toxin as a Biological Weapon. JAMA. 285(8). 1059–1059.1297 indexed citations breakdown →
8.
Dennis, David T., Thomas V. Inglesby, John G. Bartlett, et al.. (2001). Tularemia as a Biological Weapon. JAMA. 285(21). 2763–2763.1020 indexed citations breakdown →
9.
Inglesby, Thomas V., David T. Dennis, Donald A. Henderson, et al.. (2000). Plague as a Biological Weapon. JAMA. 283(17). 2281–2281.708 indexed citations breakdown →
10.
Inglesby, Thomas V., Donald A. Henderson, John G. Bartlett, et al.. (1999). Anthrax as a Biological Weapon. JAMA. 281(18). 1735–1735.625 indexed citations breakdown →
11.
Inglesby, Thomas V., John G. Bartlett, Michael S. Ascher, et al.. (1999). Smallpox as a Biological Weapon. JAMA. 281(22). 2127–2127.1179 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.