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.
New Parallaxes of Galactic Cepheids from Spatially Scanning the Hubble Space Telescope: Implications for the Hubble Constant
2018287 citationsAdam G. Riess, John MacKenty et al.The Astrophysical Journalprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
This map shows the geographic impact of John MacKenty'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 John MacKenty with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites John MacKenty more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by John MacKenty. 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 John MacKenty. The network helps show where John MacKenty may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of John MacKenty
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of John MacKenty.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of John MacKenty 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 John MacKenty. John MacKenty is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Ryan, Robert, Susana E. Deustua, M. Sosey, et al.. (2016). The Updated Calibration Pipeline for WFC3/UVIS: a Reference Guide to calwf3 (version 3.3). 1.3 indexed citations
8.
Long, Knox S., S. Baggett, & John MacKenty. (2015). Persistence in the WFC3 IR Detector: Spatial Variations. 16.2 indexed citations
9.
Long, Knox S., S. Baggett, & John MacKenty. (2015). Persistence in the WFC3 IR Detector: an Improved Model Incorporating the Effects of Exposure Time. 15–15.5 indexed citations
Deustua, Susana E., R. C. Bohlin, & John MacKenty. (2014). Enabling Observations of Bright Stars with WFC3 IR Grisms. 15.1 indexed citations
12.
Brammer, Gabriel, et al.. (2014). Time-varying Excess Earth-glow Backgrounds in the WFC3/IR Channel. 3.5 indexed citations
13.
Long, Knox S., et al.. (2014). Attempts to Mitigate Trapping Effects in Scanned Grism Observations of Exoplanet Transits with WFC3/IR. 14–14.1 indexed citations
14.
Long, Knox S., S. Baggett, & John MacKenty. (2013). Characterizing Persistence in the WFC3 IR Channel: Observations of Omega Cen. 7.3 indexed citations
15.
Pavlovsky, Cheryl, S. Baggett, H. Bushouse, et al.. (2010). WFC3: UVIS and IR Flat Fields. 215.1 indexed citations
16.
Sabbi, Elena, Jason S. Kalirai, A. R. Martel, et al.. (2009). WFC3 Calibration Using Galactic Clusters. 6.1 indexed citations
17.
Figer, Donald F., Ben Davies, A. Herrero, et al.. (2006). Massive Star Clusters. 30734.
18.
MacKenty, John & M. Stiavelli. (2000). A Multi-Object Spectrometer using Micro Mirror Arrays. ASPC. 195. 443.4 indexed citations
19.
Leckrone, D. S., E. S. Cheng, Lee D. Feinberg, et al.. (1998). Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3) - A Facility Instrument For The Hubble Space Telescope. AAS. 192.1 indexed citations
20.
Petro, L., et al.. (1994). Improved Dark-Sky Restrictions for HST Observations. American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts. 185.
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.