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.
Refractive Error, Axial Length, and Relative Peripheral Refractive Error before and after the Onset of Myopia
2007449 citationsDonald O. Mutti, G. Lynn Mitchell et al.Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Scienceprofile →
Author Peers
Peers are selected by citation overlap in the author's most active subfields.
citations ·
hero ref
This map shows the geographic impact of Ruth E. Manny'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 Ruth E. Manny with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Ruth E. Manny more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Ruth E. Manny. 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 Ruth E. Manny. The network helps show where Ruth E. Manny may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Ruth E. Manny
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Ruth E. Manny.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Ruth E. Manny 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 Ruth E. Manny. Ruth E. Manny is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Anderson, Heather A., Julia S. Benoit, & Ruth E. Manny. (2016). Evaluation of Progressive Addition Lens Wear and Age-Related Changes in Phoria Magnitude in Myopic Children. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 57(12). 1523–1523.1 indexed citations
4.
Gwiazda, Jane E., Li Deng, & Ruth E. Manny. (2012). Seasonal Differences in the Progression of Myopia in COMET Children. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 53(14). 2309–2309.2 indexed citations
5.
Manny, Ruth E., Liming Dong, Jane E. Gwiazda, et al.. (2010). Intraocular Pressure (IOP) and Central Corneal Thickness (CCT) in the Collaborative Observational Study of Myopia in the COMET Cohort (COSMICC). Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 51(13). 2196–2196.
Anderson, Heather A., Karla K. Stuebing, Adrian Glasser, & Ruth E. Manny. (2008). Influence of Accommodative Amplitude and Age on Objective Measurements of Lag in Children and Adults. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 49(13). 4560–4560.2 indexed citations
8.
Mutti, Donald O., Loraine T. Sinnott, L. A. Jones, et al.. (2008). Relative Peripheral Refractive Error and the Risk of Juvenile-Onset Myopia. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 49(13). 5426–5426.2 indexed citations
9.
Walline, Jeffrey J., L. A. Jones, Loraine T. Sinnott, et al.. (2008). Soft Contact Lenses Do Not Increase Myopia Progression in Children. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 49(13). 2021–2021.1 indexed citations
10.
Gwiazda, Jane E., Leslie Hyman, Thomas T. Norton, et al.. (2006). Five–Year Results From the Correction of Myopia Evaluation Trial (COMET). Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 47(13). 1166–1166.10 indexed citations
Manny, Ruth E., et al.. (1991). Accommodative response following percent cyclopentolate hydrochloride as a function of dosage and iris color. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 32(4). 1124.3 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.