J.W.C. Gates

428 citations
39 papers · 277 · h-index 10

Impact in

Papers in

J.W.C. Gates

32 papers receiving 240 citations

Peers

J.W.C. Gates
Comparison fields: 5 of 61
  • Media Technology 58
  • Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition 94
  • Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics 120
  • Ophthalmology 31
  • Instrumentation 11
Replace Zacarías Malacara with:
Zacarías Malacara Mexico
B.M. Watrasiewicz United Kingdom
Gordon Spencer United States
C. L. Koliopoulos United States
Joseph M. Geary United States
Holger Venzke Germany
C. S. Vikram United States
Matthew P. Rimmer United States
Davies William de Lima Monteiro Brazil
Rajpal S. Sirohi India
J.W.C. Gates relative to Zacarías Malacara Mexico Zacarías Malacara's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×1.5×2.1×
Zacarías Malacara · 1×
Citations per year

Countries citing papers authored by J.W.C. Gates

Since Specialization
Citations

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

Fields of papers citing papers by J.W.C. Gates

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers produced by J.W.C. Gates. 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 J.W.C. Gates. The network helps show where J.W.C. Gates may publish in the future.

Co-authors

The 7 scholars most cited alongside J.W.C. Gates, 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 J.W.C. Gates Line = papers co-authored together J.W.C. Gates links everyone, so they are left out of the graph.

All Works

20 of 20 papers shown

Showing the 20 most-cited of 39 papers — load more, or switch the sort, to bring in the rest.

#Work
1
Possible errors in the measurement of retinal lesions.
199336
2 195625
3 195524
4 196623
5 196820
6 196917
7 196817
8 196814
9 195513
10 195410
11 19817
12 19707
13 19867
14 19707
15 19765
16 19684
17 19824
18 19704
19 19714
20 19684

About J.W.C. Gates

J.W.C. Gates is a scholar working on Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics, Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Media Technology, Mechanical Engineering and Biomedical Engineering, having authored 39 papers that have together received 277 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Optical measurement and interference techniques (9 papers), Digital Holography and Microscopy (8 papers), Advanced Optical Imaging Technologies (8 papers), Advanced Measurement and Metrology Techniques (7 papers), Photorefractive and Nonlinear Optics (4 papers), Optical Polarization and Ellipsometry (4 papers), Adaptive optics and wavefront sensing (3 papers) and 3D Surveying and Cultural Heritage (2 papers). The work is most often cited by research in Media Technology (58 citations), Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (94 citations), Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics (120 citations), Ophthalmology (31 citations) and Instrumentation (11 citations). J.W.C. Gates has collaborated with scholars based in United Kingdom, United States and Singapore. Frequent co-authors include Kenneth M. Taylor, S J Bennett, L H Tanner, J.M. Burch, I. N. Ross, R. J. Parker and R. J. King. Their work appears in journals such as Nature, Optics & Laser Technology, The Photogrammetric Record, The Physics Teacher and PubMed.

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