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 moment magnitude scale
19793.0k citationsThomas C. Hanks et al.Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheresprofile →
The character of high-frequency strong ground motion
1981656 citationsThomas C. Hanks et al.Bulletin of the Seismological Society of Americaprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
Countries citing papers authored by Thomas C. Hanks
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Thomas C. Hanks'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 Thomas C. Hanks with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Thomas C. Hanks more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Thomas C. Hanks. 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 Thomas C. Hanks. The network helps show where Thomas C. Hanks may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Thomas C. Hanks
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Thomas C. Hanks.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Thomas C. Hanks 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 Thomas C. Hanks. Thomas C. Hanks is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Baltay, A., Thomas C. Hanks, & Norman Abrahamson. (2019). Earthquake Stress Drop and Arias Intensity. Journal of Geophysical Research Solid Earth. 124(4). 3838–3852.43 indexed citations
Baltay, A., Thomas C. Hanks, & F. L. Vernon. (2016). Moment Magnitudes and Local Magnitudes for Small Earthquakes: Implications for Ground-Motion Prediction and b-values. AGUFM. 2016.2 indexed citations
6.
Sahakian, Valerie J., A. Baltay, Thomas C. Hanks, et al.. (2016). Reducing Uncertainty in GMPE's Through Physical Explanations of the Path Term. AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts. 2016.2 indexed citations
7.
Baltay, A., et al.. (2015). Stress Drop and Depth Controls on Ground Motion From Induced Earthquakes. AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts. 2015.2 indexed citations
8.
Baltay, A. & Thomas C. Hanks. (2013). Understanding the Magnitude Dependence of PGA and PGV: A look at differences between mainshocks and aftershocks in the NGA-West2 data and ground motion from small magnitude Anza data. AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts. 2013.4 indexed citations
9.
Hanks, Thomas C. & Wayne Thatcher. (2006). The Slip-Rate Discrepancy for the Altyn Tagh Fault: An Example of Epistemic Uncertainty. AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts. 2006.6 indexed citations
10.
Cook, Kristen, K. X. Whipple, Thomas C. Hanks, & Arjun M. Heimsath. (2006). Characterizing Fluvial Incision in the Colorado River System in Southern Utah: Integrating Regional Patterns and Local Rates. AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts. 2006.1 indexed citations
Hanks, Thomas C. & Dennis A. Johnson. (1976). Geophysical assessment of peak accelerations. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 66(3). 959–968.69 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.