Dana Block‐Abraham
About
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Dana Block‐Abraham
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Dana Block‐Abraham. A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Dana Block‐Abraham 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 Dana Block‐Abraham. Dana Block‐Abraham is excluded from the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Dana Block‐Abraham
19 papers receiving 287 citations
Fields of papers citing papers by Dana Block‐Abraham
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Dana Block‐Abraham. 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 Dana Block‐Abraham. The network helps show where Dana Block‐Abraham may publish in the future.
Countries citing papers authored by Dana Block‐Abraham
This map shows the geographic impact of Dana Block‐Abraham'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 Dana Block‐Abraham with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Dana Block‐Abraham more than expected).
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.