Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39:783-791
- Authors
- Joe Felsenstein
- Journal
- Evolution
In The Last Decade
doi.org/w15082292 →Countries where authors are citing Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39:783-791
This map shows the geographic impact of Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39:783-791. 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 Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39:783-791 with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39:783-791 more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39:783-791
This network shows the impact of Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39:783-791. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39:783-791.
About Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39:783-791
This paper, published in 1985, received 462 indexed citations . Written by Joe Felsenstein covering the research area of Genetics and Sociology and Political Science. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Molecular Biology (210 citations), Plant Science (168 citations) and Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics (141 citations). Published in Evolution.
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/w15082292.