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.
Positive feedback and momentum growth during debris-flow entrainment of wet bed sediment
2010473 citationsRichard M. Iverson, Mark E. Reid et al.Nature Geoscienceprofile →
The perfect debris flow? Aggregated results from 28 large‐scale experiments
2010404 citationsRichard M. Iverson, Matthew Logan et al.Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheresprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
This map shows the geographic impact of Matthew Logan'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 Matthew Logan with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Matthew Logan more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Matthew Logan. 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 Matthew Logan. The network helps show where Matthew Logan may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Matthew Logan
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Matthew Logan.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Matthew Logan 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 Matthew Logan. Matthew Logan is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Iverson, Richard M., Mark E. Reid, Matthew Logan, et al.. (2010). Positive feedback and momentum growth during debris-flow entrainment of wet bed sediment. Nature Geoscience. 4(2). 116–121.473 indexed citations breakdown →
10.
Iverson, Richard M., Matthew Logan, Richard G. LaHusen, & Matteo Berti. (2010). The perfect debris flow? Aggregated results from 28 large‐scale experiments. Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres. 115(F3).404 indexed citations breakdown →
11.
LaHusen, Richard G., et al.. (2008). Instrumentation in remote and dangerous settings; examples using data from GPS “spider” deployments during the 2004-2005 eruption of Mount St. Helens, Washington: Chapter 16 in A volcano rekindled: the renewed eruption of Mount St. Helens, 2004-2006. 335–345.2 indexed citations
Reid, Mark E., Richard M. Iverson, Neal R. Iverson, et al.. (2008). Deciphering landslide behavior using large-scale flume experiments. Iowa State University Digital Repository (Iowa State University). 497–500.7 indexed citations
15.
Logan, Matthew & Richard M. Iverson. (2007). Video documentation of experiments at the USGS debris-flow flume 1992–2006 (amended to include 2007-2013).16 indexed citations
16.
Schneider, D. J., James W. Vallance, Matthew Logan, R. Wessels, & M. S. Ramsey. (2005). Airborne thermal infrared imaging of the 2004-2005 eruption of Mount St. Helens. AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts. 2005.2 indexed citations
17.
Iverson, Richard M., Roger P. Denlinger, Richard G. LaHusen, & Matthew Logan. (2000). Two-phase debris-flow across 3-D terrain: model predictions and experimental tests.11 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.