Freddie Ray Jones
About
In The Last Decade
Freddie Ray Jones
4 papers receiving 290 citations
Peers
Comparison fields: 5 of 42
- Pathology and Forensic Medicine 200
- Neurology 164
- Surgery 67
- Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine 44
- Epidemiology 44
Countries citing papers authored by Freddie Ray Jones
This map shows the geographic impact of Freddie Ray Jones'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 Freddie Ray Jones with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Freddie Ray Jones more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by Freddie Ray Jones
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Freddie Ray Jones. 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 Freddie Ray Jones. The network helps show where Freddie Ray Jones may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Freddie Ray Jones
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Freddie Ray Jones. A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Freddie Ray Jones 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 Freddie Ray Jones. Freddie Ray Jones is excluded from the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
All Works
| # | Work | Indexed citations |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | |
| 2 | 49 | |
| 3 | 251 | |
| 4 | Toe tourniquet syndrome. | 8 |
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.