Nina M. Stanczyk
- Insect Science top 2%
- Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health top 10%
- Plant Science top 10%
- Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience top 10%
- Genetics
- Co-authors
- L. M. FieldJohn F. Y. BrookfieldJames G. LoganConsuelo Μ. De MoraesMark C. MescherHannier PulidoAndrew F. ReadRickard Ignell
- Topics
- Insect Pest Control Strategies (5 papers)Neurobiology and Insect Physiology Research (5 papers)Mosquito-borne diseases and control (5 papers)
- Cited by
- Insect SciencePublic Health, Environmental and Occupational HealthCellular and Molecular Neuroscience
- Partner nations
- United KingdomSwitzerlandUnited States
In The Last Decade
Nina M. Stanczyk
11 papers receiving 553 citations
Peers
Comparison fields: 5 of 65
- Insect Science 272
- Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health 265
- Plant Science 206
- Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience 145
- Genetics 83
Countries citing papers authored by Nina M. Stanczyk
This map shows the geographic impact of Nina M. Stanczyk'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 Nina M. Stanczyk with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Nina M. Stanczyk more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by Nina M. Stanczyk
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Nina M. Stanczyk. 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 Nina M. Stanczyk. The network helps show where Nina M. Stanczyk may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Nina M. Stanczyk
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Nina M. Stanczyk. A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Nina M. Stanczyk 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 Nina M. Stanczyk. Nina M. Stanczyk is excluded from the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
All Works
| # | Work | Indexed citations |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 12 | |
| 2 | 16 | |
| 3 | 60 | |
| 4 | 23 | |
| 5 | 12 | |
| 6 | 117 | |
| 7 | 75 | |
| 8 | 12 | |
| 9 | 91 | |
| 10 | 106 | |
| 11 | 42 |
About Nina M. Stanczyk
Nina M. Stanczyk is a scholar working on Sensory Systems, Insect Science and Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience, having authored 11 papers that have together received 566 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Insect Pest Control Strategies (5 papers), Neurobiology and Insect Physiology Research (5 papers) and Mosquito-borne diseases and control (5 papers). The work is most often cited by research in Insect Science (272 citations), Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health (265 citations) and Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience (145 citations). Nina M. Stanczyk has collaborated with scholars based in United Kingdom, Switzerland and United States. Frequent co-authors include L. M. Field, John F. Y. Brookfield, James G. Logan, Consuelo Μ. De Moraes, Mark C. Mescher, James G. Logan, Hannier Pulido, Andrew F. Read, Rickard Ignell and John A. Pickett. Their work appears in journals such as Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, PLoS ONE and Scientific Reports.
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.