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.
To see but not to read; the magnocellular theory of dyslexia
This map shows the geographic impact of John Stein'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 Stein with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites John Stein more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by John Stein. 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 Stein. The network helps show where John Stein may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of John Stein
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of John Stein.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of John Stein 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 Stein. John Stein is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Stein, John. (2017). Does dyslexia exist?. Language Cognition and Neuroscience. 33(3). 313–320.24 indexed citations
3.
Hyam, Jonathan, et al.. (2011). Contrasting Connectivity of the Vim and Vop Nuclei of the Motor Thalamus Demonstrated by Probabilistic Tractography.. Neurosurgery.3 indexed citations
4.
Quinn, James, et al.. (2010). Randomized Controlled Trial of Prophylactic Antibiotics for Dog Bites with Refined Cost Model. SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología.13 indexed citations
Harasty, J., Caroline Rae, Joel B. Talcott, et al.. (2001). Lack of asymmetry characterises the cerebellum in developmental dyslexia. Australian Journal of Psychology. 53. 180–180.3 indexed citations
11.
Nandi, Dipankar, et al.. (2001). Frequency-dependent effects of chronic deep brain stimulation of the pedunculopontine region in a normal non-human primate. The Journal of Physiology. 533.6 indexed citations
Stein, John, et al.. (1997). The effects of temporary inactivation of the cerebellar- and basal ganglia-receiving areas of the macaque monkey thalamus during goal-directed and internally generated limb movements. The Journal of Physiology.1 indexed citations
14.
Cornelissen, P, et al.. (1993). Contrast sensitivity, ocular dominance and specific reading-disability. 8(4). 345–353.44 indexed citations
Nougier, Vincent, Hubert Ripoll, & John Stein. (1989). Orienting of attention with highly skilled athletes.. International journal of sport psychology. 20(3). 205–223.48 indexed citations
17.
Fowler, M. S., Patricia Riddell, & John Stein. (1988). The effect of varying vergence speed and target size on the amplitude of vergence eye movements. 49–55.2 indexed citations
18.
Bracewell, R. Martyn, Mohd. Shahid Husain, & John Stein. (1987). DIFFERENCES IN THE ACCURACY OF HUMAN SACCADES IN LEFT AND RIGHT VISUAL-FIELDS. UCL Discovery (University College London).1 indexed citations
19.
Fowler, M. S. & John Stein. (1983). Consideration of ocular motor dominance as an aetiological factor in some orthoptic problems. 43–45.3 indexed citations
20.
Stein, John. (1975). Psychogenic Voice Disorders. Journal of Music Therapy. 12(2). 96–98.4 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.