Ticks of domestic animals in Africa: a guide to identification of species
In The Last Decade
doi.org/w76386160 →Countries where authors are citing Ticks of domestic animals in Africa: a guide to identification of species
This map shows the geographic impact of Ticks of domestic animals in Africa: a guide to identification of species. 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 Ticks of domestic animals in Africa: a guide to identification of species with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Ticks of domestic animals in Africa: a guide to identification of species more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Ticks of domestic animals in Africa: a guide to identification of species
This network shows the impact of Ticks of domestic animals in Africa: a guide to identification of species. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Ticks of domestic animals in Africa: a guide to identification of species.
About Ticks of domestic animals in Africa: a guide to identification of species
This paper, published in 2003, received 980 indexed citations . Written by A.R. Walker, Ali Bouattour, J.-L. Camicas, Agustín Estrada‐Peña, Ivan G. Horak, Abdalla A. Latif, R. G. Pegram and Patricia Preston‐Ferrer covering the research area of Insect Science, Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics and Parasitology. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Parasitology (822 citations), Infectious Diseases (702 citations) and Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics (553 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/w76386160.