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.
Gauss-Newton and full Newton methods in frequency-space seismic waveform inversion
19981.2k citationsG. Pratt, Changsoo Shin et al.Geophysical Journal Internationalprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
This map shows the geographic impact of M.A. Hicks'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 M.A. Hicks with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites M.A. Hicks more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by M.A. Hicks. 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 M.A. Hicks. The network helps show where M.A. Hicks may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of M.A. Hicks
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of M.A. Hicks.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of M.A. Hicks 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 M.A. Hicks. M.A. Hicks is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
All Works
13 of 13 papers shown
1.
Zheng, Xiaobo, et al.. (2019). On stress oscillation in MPM simulations involving one or two phases. 135–139.6 indexed citations
Galavi, Vahid, et al.. (2017). Finite element simulation of static liquefaction of submerged sand slopes using a multilaminate model. Research Repository (Delft University of Technology).2 indexed citations
4.
Yuan, Jun, et al.. (2017). Technical feasibility of a Dutch radioactive waste repository in Boom Clay : Plugs and seals. Research Repository (Delft University of Technology).
5.
Vardon, Philip J., et al.. (2017). Technical feasibility of a Dutch radioactive waste repository in Boom Clay: Thermo-hydro-mechanical behaviour. Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS).1 indexed citations
6.
Vardon, Philip J., et al.. (2017). An evaluation of MPM, GIMP and CMPM in geotechnical problems considering large deformations.2 indexed citations
7.
Heaney, Claire E., et al.. (2013). An adaptive mesh refinement algorithm based on element subdivision with application to geomaterials. Research Repository (Delft University of Technology).2 indexed citations
8.
Tan, Shawn, et al.. (2012). Numerical simulation of wave attack on sea dike with asphalt concrete revetment. Research Repository (Delft University of Technology).1 indexed citations
Hicks, M.A., et al.. (2012). Multi-dimensional electro-omosis consolidation of clays. Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS).5 indexed citations
11.
Hicks, M.A., et al.. (2006). Late/Middle/Early/Ichnocambrian: a communication-friendly nomenclature for the epochs of a quadripartite Cambrian Period. 29(2). 128–129.2 indexed citations
12.
Pratt, G., Changsoo Shin, & M.A. Hicks. (1998). Gauss-Newton and full Newton methods in frequency-space seismic waveform inversion. Geophysical Journal International. 133(2). 341–362.1159 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.