Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015: how are the world's forests changing?
In The Last Decade
doi.org/w74866905 →Countries where authors are citing Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015: how are the world's forests changing?
This map shows the geographic impact of Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015: how are the world's forests changing?. 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 Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015: how are the world's forests changing? with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015: how are the world's forests changing? more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015: how are the world's forests changing?
This network shows the impact of Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015: how are the world's forests changing?. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015: how are the world's forests changing?.
About Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015: how are the world's forests changing?
This paper, published in 2015, received 466 indexed citations . Written by K.G. MacDicken, Erik Lindquist, Gregory A. Reams and Rémi d’Annunzio covering the research area of Global and Planetary Change. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Global and Planetary Change (293 citations), Nature and Landscape Conservation (146 citations) and Ecology (116 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/w74866905.