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.
Weak pairwise correlations imply strongly correlated network states in a neural population
20061.1k citationsElad Schneidman, Michael J. Berry et al.Natureprofile →
Countries citing papers authored by Michael J. Berry
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Michael J. Berry'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 Michael J. Berry with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Michael J. Berry more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by Michael J. Berry
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Michael J. Berry. 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 Michael J. Berry. The network helps show where Michael J. Berry may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Michael J. Berry
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Michael J. Berry.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Michael J. Berry 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 Michael J. Berry. Michael J. Berry is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
All Works
20 of 20 papers shown
1.
Prentice, Jason, et al.. (2016). Noise-robust modes of the retinal population code geometrically correspond with "ridges". arXiv (Cornell University).2 indexed citations
Schneidman, Elad, Michael J. Berry, Ronen Segev, & William Bialek. (2006). Weak pairwise correlations imply strongly correlated network states in a neural population. Nature. 440(7087). 1007–1012.1100 indexed citations breakdown →
8.
McLean, Judith, Ronen Segev, Michael A. Freed, et al.. (2006). How Much the Eye Tells the Brain. Current Biology. 16(14). 1428–1434.160 indexed citations
9.
Schneidman, Elad, Susanne Still, Michael J. Berry, & William Bialek. (2003). Network Information and Connected Correlations. Physical Review Letters. 91(23). 238701–238701.191 indexed citations
Berry, Michael J. & Markus Meister. (1997). Refractoriness and Neural Precision. CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology). 110–116.1 indexed citations
Gell‐Mann, Murray & Michael J. Berry. (1994). Book-Review - the Quark and the Jaguar - Adventures in the Simple and the Complex. 369. 529.1 indexed citations
Reddy, K. V. & Michael J. Berry. (1978). Intracavity dye laser photoactivation of chemical reactions (A). Journal of the Optical Society of America A. 68. 694.7 indexed citations
19.
Berry, Michael J. & H. S. Hasegawa. (1975). Second Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Geoscience Canada. 2(4).3 indexed citations
20.
Berry, Michael J.. (1974). Chemical laser studies of energy partitioning into chemical reaction products. STIN. 75. 19670.1 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.