National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) : 2010-2012 state report
Impact in
- Health 346
In The Last Decade
doi.org/w88949108 →Countries where authors are citing National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) : 2010-2012 state report
This map shows the geographic impact of National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) : 2010-2012 state 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 (NISVS) : 2010-2012 state 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 (NISVS) : 2010-2012 state report more than expected).
Fields of papers citing National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) : 2010-2012 state report
This network shows the impact of National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) : 2010-2012 state 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 (NISVS) : 2010-2012 state report.
About National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) : 2010-2012 state report
This paper, published in 2017, received 516 indexed citations . Written by Sharon G. Smith, Kathleen C. Basile, Leah K. Gilbert, Melissa T. Merrick, Nimesh Patel and Anurag Jain. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Health (346 citations), Sociology and Political Science (219 citations), Gender Studies (212 citations), Clinical Psychology (152 citations) and General Health Professions (71 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/w88949108.