Mark L. Benson

749 total citations
9 papers, 574 citations indexed

About

Mark L. Benson is a scholar working on Molecular Biology, Computational Theory and Mathematics and Pharmacology. According to data from OpenAlex, Mark L. Benson has authored 9 papers receiving a total of 574 indexed citations (citations by other indexed papers that have themselves been cited), including 8 papers in Molecular Biology, 6 papers in Computational Theory and Mathematics and 2 papers in Pharmacology. Recurrent topics in Mark L. Benson's work include Protein Structure and Dynamics (7 papers), Computational Drug Discovery Methods (6 papers) and Machine Learning in Bioinformatics (2 papers). Mark L. Benson is often cited by papers focused on Protein Structure and Dynamics (7 papers), Computational Drug Discovery Methods (6 papers) and Machine Learning in Bioinformatics (2 papers). Mark L. Benson collaborates with scholars based in United States. Mark L. Benson's co-authors include Heather A. Carlson, Richard D. Smith, Michael G. Lerner, John C. Faver, Kenneth M. Merz, Michael S. Marshall, Bing Wang, Xiao He, C. David Sherrill and Benjamin P. Roberts and has published in prestigious journals such as PLoS ONE, Journal of Medicinal Chemistry and Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation.

In The Last Decade

Mark L. Benson

9 papers receiving 565 citations

Peers — A (Enhanced Table)

Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late) cites · hero ref

Name	h						Papers	Cites
Mark L. Benson United States	7	426	306	160	83	51	9	574
Anthony Cruz United States	11	427 1.0×	241 0.8×	159 1.0×	88 1.1×	27 0.5×	23	614
Marco Scarsi Switzerland	10	475 1.1×	237 0.8×	83 0.5×	78 0.9×	23 0.5×	11	599
Mariusz Milik Poland	15	615 1.4×	269 0.9×	134 0.8×	65 0.8×	17 0.3×	24	813
Paulius Mikulskis Sweden	9	386 0.9×	184 0.6×	98 0.6×	79 1.0×	56 1.1×	15	523
Fredrik Österberg Sweden	6	534 1.3×	314 1.0×	94 0.6×	40 0.5×	36 0.7×	7	711
Martin Almlöf Sweden	6	411 1.0×	170 0.6×	79 0.5×	57 0.7×	29 0.6×	9	537
Tom Kurtzman United States	13	600 1.4×	340 1.1×	193 1.2×	155 1.9×	65 1.3×	24	756
Andrea C. McReynolds United States	8	407 1.0×	142 0.5×	95 0.6×	62 0.7×	18 0.4×	9	564
Lance M. Westerhoff United States	12	340 0.8×	195 0.6×	138 0.9×	92 1.1×	67 1.3×	15	506
Daniel Cappel Germany	13	327 0.8×	188 0.6×	82 0.5×	71 0.9×	47 0.9×	19	576

Countries citing papers authored by Mark L. Benson

Since Specialization

Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of Mark L. Benson'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 Mark L. Benson with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Mark L. Benson more than expected).

Fields of papers citing papers by Mark L. Benson

Since Specialization

Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers produced by Mark L. Benson. 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 Mark L. Benson. The network helps show where Mark L. Benson may publish in the future.

Co-authorship network of co-authors of Mark L. Benson

This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Mark L. Benson. A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Mark L. Benson 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 Mark L. Benson. Mark L. Benson is excluded from the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.

All Works

Sort: Min cites: Since: Top N: Style:

9 of 9 papers shown

1.

Clark, Jordan, Mark L. Benson, Richard D. Smith, & Heather A. Carlson. (2019). Inherent versus induced protein flexibility: Comparisons within and between apo and holo structures. PLoS Computational Biology. 15(1). e1006705–e1006705. 60 indexed citations

2.

Benson, Mark L., et al.. (2012). Prediction of trypsin/molecular fragment binding affinities by free energy decomposition and empirical scores. Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design. 26(5). 647–659. 11 indexed citations

3.

Faver, John C., Mark L. Benson, Xiao He, et al.. (2011). The Energy Computation Paradox and ab initio Protein Folding. PLoS ONE. 6(4). e18868–e18868. 47 indexed citations

4.

Faver, John C., Mark L. Benson, Xiao He, et al.. (2011). Formal Estimation of Errors in Computed Absolute Interaction Energies of Protein−Ligand Complexes. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation. 7(3). 790–797. 120 indexed citations

5.

Benson, Mark L., et al.. (2010). UPDATING BINDING MOAD — DATA MANAGEMENT AND INFORMATION WORKFLOW. New Mathematics and Natural Computation. 6(1). 49–56. 2 indexed citations

6.

Carlson, Heather A., Richard D. Smith, Nickolay A. Khazanov, et al.. (2008). Differences between High- and Low-Affinity Complexes of Enzymes and Nonenzymes. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry. 51(20). 6432–6441. 36 indexed citations

7.

Smith, Richard D., et al.. (2005). Exploring protein–ligand recognition with Binding MOAD. Journal of Molecular Graphics and Modelling. 24(6). 414–425. 51 indexed citations

8.

Benson, Mark L., et al.. (2005). Binding MOAD (Mother Of All Databases). Proteins Structure Function and Bioinformatics. 60(3). 333–340. 244 indexed citations

9.

Benson, Mark L., et al.. (1996). The effect of processing variables on the environmental stress crack resistance of blow‐molded polyethylene bottles. Polymer Engineering and Science. 36(9). 1266–1271. 3 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.

Explore authors with similar magnitude of impact