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.
Management of Helicobacter pylori infection—the Maastricht V/Florence Consensus Report
20162.1k citationsPeter Malfertheiner, Richard H. Hunt et al.profile →
Meta-analysis of the relationship between Helicobacter pylori seropositivity and gastric cancer
Countries citing papers authored by Richard H. Hunt
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Richard H. Hunt'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 Richard H. Hunt with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Richard H. Hunt more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Richard H. Hunt. 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 Richard H. Hunt. The network helps show where Richard H. Hunt may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Richard H. Hunt
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Richard H. Hunt.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Richard H. Hunt 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 Richard H. Hunt. Richard H. Hunt is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Manga, L., et al.. (2006). Distribution of members of the Anopheles gambiae Giles s.l. complex in Namibia and susceptibility to insecticides used for malaria control : short communication. African Entomology. 14(2). 404–406.4 indexed citations
Masendu, Hieronymo, Richard H. Hunt, Lizette L. Koekemoer, et al.. (2005). Spatial and temporal distributions and insecticide susceptibility of malaria vectors in Zimbabwe. African Entomology. 13(1). 25–34.15 indexed citations
Awolola, Taiwo Samson, et al.. (2003). Species composition and biting activities of anthropophilic Anopheles mosquitoes and their role in malaria transmission in a holo-endemic area of southwestern Nigeria. African Entomology. 11(2). 227–232.20 indexed citations
13.
Govere, J., et al.. (2001). Evaluation of the efficacy of deltamethrin using contact bioassays in a malaria vector control programme in Mpumalanga Province, South Africa. African Entomology. 9(2). 163–166.4 indexed citations
14.
Govere, J., et al.. (2000). Captures of mosquitoes of the Anopheles gambiae complex (Diptera: Culicidae) in the Lowveld Region of Mpumalanga Province, South Africa.. African Entomology. 8(1). 91–99.17 indexed citations
15.
Temu, Emmanuel A., J.N. Minjas, Zul Premji, Richard H. Hunt, & Clive Shiff. (1999). The use of permethrin-impregnated bednets for malaria control in coastal Tanzania: preliminary entomological impact on vectors. African Entomology. 7(2). 233–242.1 indexed citations
16.
Coetzee, Maureen, Richard H. Hunt, Leo Braack, & G. Davidson. (1993). Distribution of mosquitoes belonging to the Anopheles gambiae complex, including malaria vectors, south of latitude 15°S.. South African Journal of Science. 89(5). 227–231.23 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.