ITER Joint Central Team
- Nuclear and High Energy Physics top 5%
- Materials Chemistry
- Biomedical Engineering
- Astronomy and Astrophysics top 10%
- Aerospace Engineering top 10%
- Topics
- Magnetic confinement fusion research (11 papers)Superconducting Materials and Applications (9 papers)Fusion materials and technologies (7 papers)
- Journals
- Journal of Nuclear MaterialsNuclear FusionMPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society)
- Partner nations
- GermanyJapanUnited States
In The Last Decade
ITER Joint Central Team
12 papers receiving 385 citations
Peers
Comparison fields: 5 of 35
- Nuclear and High Energy Physics 306
- Materials Chemistry 195
- Biomedical Engineering 130
- Astronomy and Astrophysics 117
- Aerospace Engineering 113
Countries citing papers authored by ITER Joint Central Team
This map shows the geographic impact of ITER Joint Central Team'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 ITER Joint Central Team with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites ITER Joint Central Team more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by ITER Joint Central Team
This network shows the impact of papers produced by ITER Joint Central Team. 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 ITER Joint Central Team. The network helps show where ITER Joint Central Team may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of ITER Joint Central Team
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of ITER Joint Central Team. A scholar is included among the top collaborators of ITER Joint Central Team 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 ITER Joint Central Team. ITER Joint Central Team is excluded from the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
All Works
| # | Work | Indexed citations |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 105 | |
| 2 | 8 | |
| 3 | Physics Basis of ITER-FEAT | 2 |
| 4 | 36 | |
| 5 | 145 | |
| 6 | 50 | |
| 7 | 7 | |
| 8 | 5 | |
| 9 | 17 | |
| 10 | Requirements and Selection Criteria for Plasma-Facing Materials and Components in the ITER EDA Design | 6 |
| 11 | 30 | |
| 12 | 8 |
About ITER Joint Central Team
ITER Joint Central Team is a scholar working on Nuclear and High Energy Physics, Biomedical Engineering and Aerospace Engineering, having authored 12 papers that have together received 419 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Magnetic confinement fusion research (11 papers), Superconducting Materials and Applications (9 papers) and Fusion materials and technologies (7 papers). The work is most often cited by research in Nuclear and High Energy Physics (306 citations), Astronomy and Astrophysics (117 citations) and Aerospace Engineering (113 citations). ITER Joint Central Team has collaborated with scholars based in Germany, Japan and United States. Frequent co-authors include M. Huguet, R. Aymar, V.A. Chuyanov, Y. Shimomura, M. Shimada, A.R. Polevoi, H. Matsumoto, R.R. Parker, Ken Tomabechi and R. Haange. Their work appears in journals such as Journal of Nuclear Materials, Nuclear Fusion and MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society).
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.