Virus Taxonomy: VIIIth Report of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses.
In The Last Decade
doi.org/w64778586 →Countries where authors are citing Virus Taxonomy: VIIIth Report of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses.
This map shows the geographic impact of Virus Taxonomy: VIIIth Report of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses.. 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 Virus Taxonomy: VIIIth Report of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses. with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Virus Taxonomy: VIIIth Report of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses. more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Virus Taxonomy: VIIIth Report of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses.
This network shows the impact of Virus Taxonomy: VIIIth Report of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses.. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Virus Taxonomy: VIIIth Report of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses..
About Virus Taxonomy: VIIIth Report of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses.
This paper, published in 2005, received 657 indexed citations . Written by C. M. Fauquet, M. A. Mayo, Jack Maniloff, Ulrich Desselberger and L. Andrew Ball covering the research area of Epidemiology, Infectious Diseases and Agronomy and Crop Science. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Plant Science (240 citations), Infectious Diseases (193 citations) and Animal Science and Zoology (124 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/w64778586.