Countries where authors publish in Addiction Research & Theory
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Addiction Research & Theory. 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 papers published in Addiction Research & Theory with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Addiction Research & Theory more than expected).
Fields of papers published in Addiction Research & Theory
This network shows the impact of papers published in Addiction Research & Theory. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers published in Addiction Research & Theory.
About Addiction Research & Theory
The 1.3k papers published in Addiction Research & Theory in the last decades have received a total of 23.4k indexed citations . Papers published in Addiction Research & Theory usually cover Applied Psychology (202 papers), Clinical Psychology (432 papers) and Epidemiology (641 papers) specifically the topics of Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes (568 papers), Homelessness and Social Issues (189 papers), Gambling Behavior and Treatments (189 papers), Behavioral Health and Interventions (182 papers), HIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk (130 papers), Alcohol Consumption and Health Effects (107 papers), Smoking Behavior and Cessation (99 papers) and Opioid Use Disorder Treatment (95 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Addiction Research & Theory are Mark D. Griffiths, Emily A. Hennessy, Howard Parker, Craig Reinarman, David Best, Cameron Duff, John F. Kelly, Philip Newall, Robin Room and Fiona Dobbie.
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.