Canoco Reference Manual and User’s Guide: Software for Ordination (version 5.0)
Impact in
- Ecology 700
Classified as
In The Last Decade
doi.org/w44782801 →Countries where authors are citing Canoco Reference Manual and User’s Guide: Software for Ordination (version 5.0)
This map shows the geographic impact of Canoco Reference Manual and User’s Guide: Software for Ordination (version 5.0). 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 Canoco Reference Manual and User’s Guide: Software for Ordination (version 5.0) with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Canoco Reference Manual and User’s Guide: Software for Ordination (version 5.0) more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Canoco Reference Manual and User’s Guide: Software for Ordination (version 5.0)
This network shows the impact of Canoco Reference Manual and User’s Guide: Software for Ordination (version 5.0). Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Canoco Reference Manual and User’s Guide: Software for Ordination (version 5.0).
About Canoco Reference Manual and User’s Guide: Software for Ordination (version 5.0)
This paper, published in 2012, received 1.7k indexed citations . Written by Cajo J. F. ter Braak and Petr Šmilauer covering the research area of Animal Science and Zoology. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Ecology (700 citations), Nature and Landscape Conservation (438 citations), Plant Science (419 citations), Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics (349 citations) and Atmospheric Science (229 citations).
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/w44782801.