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.
The performance of a new biological water quality score system based on macroinvertebrates over a wide range of unpolluted running-water sites
1983878 citationsD. Moss, J F Wright et al.profile →
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.T. Furse'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.T. Furse with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites M.T. Furse more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by M.T. Furse. 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.T. Furse. The network helps show where M.T. Furse may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of M.T. Furse
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of M.T. Furse.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of M.T. Furse 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.T. Furse. M.T. Furse is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Raven, Paul, et al.. (2009). River Habitat Survey In the Picos de Europa, Northern Spain. Results from 2008. NERC Open Research Archive (Natural Environment Research Council).3 indexed citations
Sutcliffe, D. W., et al.. (2000). Assessing the biological quality of fresh waters : RIVPACS and other techniques : invited contributions from an International Workshop held in Oxford, UK on 16-18 September 1997 by the Institute of Freshwater Ecology (NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology), UK, Environment Agency, UK, Environment Australia, Land and Water Resources R & D Corporation, Canberra, Australia.187 indexed citations
11.
Wright, J.F., et al.. (2000). Classification of the biological quality of rivers in England and Wales.. 55–69.24 indexed citations
12.
Cox, Richard J., et al.. (1997). RIVPACS III - Great Britain (Beta release version) User manual. NERC Open Research Archive (Natural Environment Research Council).3 indexed citations
13.
Wright, J.F., et al.. (1997). Practical sessions on RIVPACS III+ England and Wales version: - a series of step-by-step exercises to demonstrate some of the major options available in RIVPACS III+. NERC Open Research Archive (Natural Environment Research Council).1 indexed citations
Furse, M.T., et al.. (1996). An assessment of the Land Cover Map of Great Britain within headwater stream catchments for four river systems in England and Wales. NERC Open Research Archive (Natural Environment Research Council).2 indexed citations
16.
Furse, M.T.. (1995). The faunal richness of headwater streams: stage 4 - development of a conservation strategy. NERC Open Research Archive (Natural Environment Research Council).2 indexed citations
Barr, Colin, R. G. H. Bunce, R. T. Clarke, et al.. (1993). Countryside Survey 1990: main report. (Countryside 1990 vol.2). NERC Open Research Archive (Natural Environment Research Council).16 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.