National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2010 Summary Report
In The Last Decade
doi.org/w68256767 →Countries where authors are citing National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2010 Summary Report
This map shows the geographic impact of National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2010 Summary Report. 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 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2010 Summary Report with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2010 Summary Report more than expected).
Fields of papers citing National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2010 Summary Report
This network shows the impact of National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2010 Summary Report. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2010 Summary Report.
About National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2010 Summary Report
This paper, published in 2011, received 595 indexed citations . Written by Michele Lynberg Black, Kathleen C. Basile, Matthew J. Breiding, Sharon G. Smith, Mikel L. Walters, Melissa T. Merrick, Jieru Chen and Mark Stevens covering the research area of Sociology and Political Science, Health and Gender Studies. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Health (425 citations), Sociology and Political Science (278 citations) and Gender Studies (264 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/w68256767.