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.
Plankton stratigraphy
1988523 citationsWilliam V. SliterPalaeogeography Palaeoclimatology Palaeoecologyprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
Countries citing papers authored by William V. Sliter
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of William V. Sliter'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 William V. Sliter with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites William V. Sliter more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by William V. Sliter
This network shows the impact of papers produced by William V. Sliter. 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 William V. Sliter. The network helps show where William V. Sliter may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of William V. Sliter
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of William V. Sliter.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of William V. Sliter 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 William V. Sliter. William V. Sliter is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
All Works
20 of 20 papers shown
1.
Douglas, Robert G. & William V. Sliter. (2017). Regional Distribution of Some Cretaceous Rotaliporidae and Globotrucanidae (Foraminiferida) within North America. 4(3).
2.
Sliter, William V.. (1999). Cretaceous planktic foraminiferal biostratigraphy of the Calera Limestone, Northern California, USA. The Journal of Foraminiferal Research. 29(4). 318–339.35 indexed citations
3.
Sliter, William V., et al.. (1999). Integrated foraminiferal biostratigraphy and chemostratigraphy of the Querecual Formation (Cretaceous), Eastern Venezuela. The Journal of Foraminiferal Research. 29(4). 487–499.16 indexed citations
4.
Sliter, William V., et al.. (1996). Late Cretaceous biostratigraphy of the La Luna Formation, Maracaibo basin. AAPG Bulletin. 80(8).3 indexed citations
5.
Abbott, Patrick L., Douglas P. Smith, William V. Sliter, & Louella R. Saul. (1995). Paleogeography of Three Paleocene Limestones in Baja California, Mexico. 1–8.2 indexed citations
6.
Pringle, M., William W. Sager, William V. Sliter, & Seth Stein. (1993). The Mesozoic Pacific.20 indexed citations
Sliter, William V.. (1986). Maastrichtian Foraminifers from Near Lake Nacimiento California - Their Paleoenvironmental Interpretation and Regional Correlation. 17–24.4 indexed citations
13.
Bandy, Orville L., William V. Sliter, & James C. Ingle. (1980). Studies in marine micropaleontology and paleoecology : a memorial volume to Orville L. Bandy.25 indexed citations
14.
Sliter, William V., et al.. (1980). Carboniferous calcareous foraminifera from northeastern Alabama, south-central Tennessee, and northwestern Georgia.31 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.