Blind equalization using the constant modulus criterion: a review

577 indexed citations

Abstract

loading...

About

This paper, published in 1998, received 577 indexed citations. Written by Roger D. Johnson, Philip Schniter, T.J. Endres, Donald R. Brown and R.A. Casas covering the research area of Computational Mechanics, Artificial Intelligence and Signal Processing. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Signal Processing (489 citations), Electrical and Electronic Engineering (274 citations) and Computational Mechanics (252 citations). Published in Proceedings of the IEEE.

In The Last Decade

doi.org/10.1109/5.720246 →

Countries where authors are citing Blind equalization using the constant modulus criterion: a review

Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of Blind equalization using the constant modulus criterion: a review. 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 Blind equalization using the constant modulus criterion: a review with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Blind equalization using the constant modulus criterion: a review more than expected).

Fields of papers citing Blind equalization using the constant modulus criterion: a review

Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of Blind equalization using the constant modulus criterion: a review. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Blind equalization using the constant modulus criterion: a review.

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.

This paper is also available at doi.org/10.1109/5.720246.

Explore hit-papers with similar magnitude of impact

Rankless by CCL
2026