Daniel Byles

400 citations
13 papers · 245 · h-index 7

Impact in

Papers in

Daniel Byles

12 papers receiving 235 citations

Peers

Daniel Byles
Comparison fields: 5 of 35
  • Ophthalmology 229
  • Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging 96
  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine 31
  • Neurology 9
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health 30
Replace Adam C. Reynolds with:
Adam C. Reynolds United States
James P. Guzek United States
Clement Chan China
Stanley J. Berke United States
Soon Cheol South Korea
Hanna Lesiewska‐Junk Poland
Connie Chou United States
L. Jay Katz United States
Stuart F. Ball United States
Frances Meier-Gibbons Switzerland
Daniel Byles relative to Adam C. Reynolds United States Adam C. Reynolds's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×2.9×
Adam C. Reynolds · 1×
Citations per year

Countries citing papers authored by Daniel Byles

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of Daniel Byles'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 Daniel Byles with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Daniel Byles more than expected).

Fields of papers citing papers by Daniel Byles

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers produced by Daniel Byles. 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 Daniel Byles. The network helps show where Daniel Byles may publish in the future.

Co-authors

The 15 scholars most cited alongside Daniel Byles, linked wherever they have co-authored with each other. Click a name or a connecting line to browse the papers they share.

Border = papers with Daniel Byles Line = papers co-authored together Daniel Byles links everyone, so they are left out of the graph.

All Works

13 of 13 papers shown
#Work
1 200057
2 201856
3 200147
4 200231
5 201818
6 201811
7 200311
8 19986
9 20224
10 20102
11 19981
12 20231
13 19970

About Daniel Byles

Daniel Byles is a scholar working on Ophthalmology, Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging, Pathology and Forensic Medicine, Neurology and Surgery, having authored 13 papers that have together received 245 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Glaucoma and retinal disorders (7 papers), Retinal Diseases and Treatments (6 papers), Ophthalmology and Eye Disorders (4 papers), Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis (4 papers), Corneal surgery and disorders (3 papers), Retinal Imaging and Analysis (2 papers), Intraocular Surgery and Lenses (2 papers) and Ocular Diseases and Behçet’s Syndrome (2 papers). The work is most often cited by research in Ophthalmology (229 citations), Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging (96 citations), Pathology and Forensic Medicine (31 citations), Neurology (9 citations) and Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health (30 citations). Daniel Byles has collaborated with scholars based in United Kingdom, Australia and China. Frequent co-authors include Peggy Frith, John F. Salmon, Michael Smith, Miles Stanford, E M Graham, Robert J. Casson, Rubina Rahman, Peter J. Chapman, Siying Lin and P H Constable. Their work appears in journals such as Eye, Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, Current Opinion in Ophthalmology, Canadian Medical Association Journal and Ophthalmology.

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.

Explore authors with similar magnitude of impact