Stanley H. Duke
- Plant Science top 1%
- Nutrition and Dietetics top 1%
- Biotechnology top 0.5%
- Molecular Biology
- Food Science top 5%
- Co-authors
- Cynthia A. HensonGenichi KakefudaDouglas C. DoehlertEric P. BeersL. E. SchraderMichael CollinsKenneth A. AlbrechtStephen O. Duke
- Topics
- Enzyme Production and Characterization (34 papers)Phytase and its Applications (30 papers)Food composition and properties (29 papers)
- Journals
- PLoS ONEPLANT PHYSIOLOGYGene
- Partner nations
- United StatesCzechiaFrance
In The Last Decade
Stanley H. Duke
83 papers receiving 2.0k citations
Peers
Comparison fields: 5 of 84
- Plant Science 1.6k
- Nutrition and Dietetics 684
- Biotechnology 674
- Molecular Biology 386
- Food Science 285
Countries citing papers authored by Stanley H. Duke
This map shows the geographic impact of Stanley H. Duke'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 Stanley H. Duke with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Stanley H. Duke more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by Stanley H. Duke
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Stanley H. Duke. 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 Stanley H. Duke. The network helps show where Stanley H. Duke may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Stanley H. Duke
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Stanley H. Duke. A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Stanley H. Duke 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 Stanley H. Duke. Stanley H. Duke is excluded from the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
All Works
| # | Work | Indexed citations |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 11 | |
| 2 | 5 | |
| 3 | 2 | |
| 4 | A Comparison of Barley Malt Amylolytic Enzyme Thermostabilities and Wort Sugars Produced during Mashing1 | 4 |
| 5 | 7 | |
| 6 | 18 | |
| 7 | 8 | |
| 8 | 23 | |
| 9 | 32 | |
| 10 | 41 | |
| 11 | 18 | |
| 12 | 40 | |
| 13 | 7 | |
| 14 | 48 | |
| 15 | 42 | |
| 16 | 88 | |
| 17 | 97 | |
| 18 | 28 | |
| 19 | The response of broiler chicks to graded levels of sorbic acid in combination with two coccidiostats. | 2 |
| 20 | 57 |
About Stanley H. Duke
Stanley H. Duke is a scholar working on Biotechnology, Nutrition and Dietetics and Plant Science, having authored 84 papers that have together received 2.1k indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Enzyme Production and Characterization (34 papers), Phytase and its Applications (30 papers) and Food composition and properties (29 papers). The work is most often cited by research in Biotechnology (674 citations), Nutrition and Dietetics (684 citations) and Plant Science (1.6k citations). Stanley H. Duke has collaborated with scholars based in United States, Czechia and France. Frequent co-authors include Cynthia A. Henson, Genichi Kakefuda, Douglas C. Doehlert, Eric P. Beers, L. E. Schrader, Michael Collins, Kenneth A. Albrecht, Stephen O. Duke, Vance N. Owens and R. E. Muck. Their work appears in journals such as PLoS ONE, PLANT PHYSIOLOGY and Gene.
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.