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.
A Comparison of Numerical Simulation Models For One‐Dimensional Infiltration
1977456 citationsR. Haverkamp, Michel Vauclin et al.Soil Science Society of America Journalprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
This map shows the geographic impact of R. Haverkamp'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 R. Haverkamp with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites R. Haverkamp more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by R. Haverkamp. 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 R. Haverkamp. The network helps show where R. Haverkamp may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of R. Haverkamp
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of R. Haverkamp.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of R. Haverkamp 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 R. Haverkamp. R. Haverkamp is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Sizeland, Katie H., Hannah C. Wells, Richard L. Edmonds, Nigel Kirby, & R. Haverkamp. (2016). The Effect of Tanning Agents on Collagen Structure and Response to Strain in Leather. Journal of the American Leather Chemists Association. 111(11). 391–397.8 indexed citations
6.
Wells, Hannah C., Geoff Holmes, & R. Haverkamp. (2016). Early Detection of Looseness in Bovine Hides Using Ultrasonic Imaging. Journal of the American Leather Chemists Association. 111(3). 107–112.4 indexed citations
Sizeland, Katie H., Geoff Holmes, Richard L. Edmonds, et al.. (2015). Fatliquor Effects on Collagen Fibril Orientation and D-spacing in Leather during Tensile Strain. Journal of the American Leather Chemists Association. 110(11). 355–362.12 indexed citations
Ferraris, Stefano, et al.. (2008). Methodology for calculating equivalent field scale soil hydraulic system parameters taking into account hysteresis. The EGU General Assembly. 10.1 indexed citations
Haverkamp, R., et al.. (2003). Hysteresis and terrestrial hydrology. EAEJA. 6154.7 indexed citations
15.
Ross, PJ, et al.. (2002). Three-dimensional analysis of infiltration from the disc infiltrometer. Murdoch Research Repository (Murdoch University).30 indexed citations
Barry, D. A., J.‐Y. Parlange, R. Haverkamp, & P. J. Ross. (1995). Infiltration under ponded conditions: 4. An explicit predictive infiltration formula.. Soil Science Society of America Journal.30 indexed citations
19.
Smettem, Keith, PJ Ross, R. Haverkamp, & J.‐Y. Parlange. (1994). Application of a twin disk infiltrometer. Murdoch Research Repository (Murdoch University).1 indexed citations
20.
Haverkamp, R., Michel Vauclin, Jaoudat Touma, P. J. Wierenga, & G. Vachaud. (1977). A comparison of numerical simulation models for one-dimensional infiltration [Water movement in soil].. Soil Science Society of America Journal.2 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.