Top Concerns of Tweeters During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Infoveillance Study
In The Last Decade
doi.org/10.2196/19016 →Countries where authors are citing Top Concerns of Tweeters During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Infoveillance Study
This map shows the geographic impact of Top Concerns of Tweeters During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Infoveillance Study. 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 Top Concerns of Tweeters During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Infoveillance Study with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Top Concerns of Tweeters During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Infoveillance Study more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Top Concerns of Tweeters During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Infoveillance Study
This network shows the impact of Top Concerns of Tweeters During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Infoveillance Study. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Top Concerns of Tweeters During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Infoveillance Study.
About Top Concerns of Tweeters During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Infoveillance Study
This paper, published in 2020, received 529 indexed citations . Written by Alaa Abd‐Alrazaq, Dari Alhuwail, Mowafa Househ, Mounir Hamdi and Zubair Shah covering the research area of Communication, Sociology and Political Science and Health. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Sociology and Political Science (379 citations), Artificial Intelligence (169 citations) and Communication (114 citations). Published in Journal of Medical Internet Research.
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/10.2196/19016.