John G. Cumming
- Organic Chemistry top 5%
- Molecular Biology
- Computational Theory and Mathematics top 2%
- Biotechnology top 5%
- Pharmacology
- Co-authors
- Ian PatersonRichard A. WardA. M. DavisMarkus HaeberleinSorel MureşanHongming ChenJulian D. SmithKap‐Sun Yeung
- Topics
- Synthetic Organic Chemistry Methods (9 papers)Computational Drug Discovery Methods (7 papers)Traditional and Medicinal Uses of Annonaceae (7 papers)
- Journals
- Journal of the American Chemical SocietyNature Reviews Drug DiscoveryJournal of Medicinal Chemistry
- Partner nations
- United KingdomSwedenSwitzerland
In The Last Decade
John G. Cumming
29 papers receiving 846 citations
Peers
Comparison fields: 5 of 96
- Organic Chemistry 500
- Molecular Biology 295
- Computational Theory and Mathematics 222
- Biotechnology 114
- Pharmacology 87
Countries citing papers authored by John G. Cumming
This map shows the geographic impact of John G. Cumming'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 John G. Cumming with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites John G. Cumming more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by John G. Cumming
This network shows the impact of papers produced by John G. Cumming. 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 John G. Cumming. The network helps show where John G. Cumming may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of John G. Cumming
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of John G. Cumming. A scholar is included among the top collaborators of John G. Cumming 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 John G. Cumming. John G. Cumming is excluded from the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
All Works
| # | Work | Indexed citations |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 7 | |
| 2 | 16 | |
| 3 | 213 | |
| 4 | 6 | |
| 5 | 16 | |
| 6 | 21 | |
| 7 | 9 | |
| 8 | 32 | |
| 9 | 18 | |
| 10 | 13 | |
| 11 | 15 | |
| 12 | 21 | |
| 13 | 54 | |
| 14 | 38 | |
| 15 | 15 | |
| 16 | 43 | |
| 17 | 55 | |
| 18 | 29 | |
| 19 | 25 | |
| 20 | 26 |
About John G. Cumming
John G. Cumming is a scholar working on Biochemistry, Organic Chemistry and Computational Theory and Mathematics, having authored 30 papers that have together received 881 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Synthetic Organic Chemistry Methods (9 papers), Computational Drug Discovery Methods (7 papers) and Traditional and Medicinal Uses of Annonaceae (7 papers). The work is most often cited by research in Organic Chemistry (500 citations), Computational Theory and Mathematics (222 citations) and Biotechnology (114 citations). John G. Cumming has collaborated with scholars based in United Kingdom, Sweden and Switzerland. Frequent co-authors include Ian Paterson, Richard A. Ward, A. M. Davis, Markus Haeberlein, Sorel Mureşan, Hongming Chen, Julian D. Smith, Kap‐Sun Yeung, Catherine McCarthy and Jonathan Clayden. Their work appears in journals such as Journal of the American Chemical Society, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery and Journal of Medicinal Chemistry.
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.