Bone Histomorphometry : Standardization of Nomenclature, Symbols, and Units
In The Last Decade
doi.org/w11226584 →Countries where authors are citing Bone Histomorphometry : Standardization of Nomenclature, Symbols, and Units
This map shows the geographic impact of Bone Histomorphometry : Standardization of Nomenclature, Symbols, and Units. 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 Bone Histomorphometry : Standardization of Nomenclature, Symbols, and Units with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Bone Histomorphometry : Standardization of Nomenclature, Symbols, and Units more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Bone Histomorphometry : Standardization of Nomenclature, Symbols, and Units
This network shows the impact of Bone Histomorphometry : Standardization of Nomenclature, Symbols, and Units. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Bone Histomorphometry : Standardization of Nomenclature, Symbols, and Units.
About Bone Histomorphometry : Standardization of Nomenclature, Symbols, and Units
This paper, published in 1987, received 3.0k indexed citations . Written by A. M. Parfitt, M. K. Drezner, Francis H. Glorieux, John А. Kanis, H H Malluche, P. J. Meunier, Susan M. Ott and Robert R. Recker covering the research area of Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine and Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Orthopedics and Sports Medicine (1.5k citations), Molecular Biology (1.3k citations) and Oncology (1.0k citations). Published in Journal of Bone and Mineral 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/w11226584.