Countries where authors publish in British Journal of Guidance and Counselling
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in British Journal of Guidance and Counselling. 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 British Journal of Guidance and Counselling with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites British Journal of Guidance and Counselling more than expected).
Fields of papers published in British Journal of Guidance and Counselling
This network shows the impact of papers published in British Journal of Guidance and Counselling. 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 British Journal of Guidance and Counselling.
About British Journal of Guidance and Counselling
The 2.2k papers published in British Journal of Guidance and Counselling in the last decades have received a total of 26.9k indexed citations . Papers published in British Journal of Guidance and Counselling usually cover Clinical Psychology (898 papers), Social Psychology (859 papers) and Safety Research (259 papers) specifically the topics of Counseling Practices and Supervision (414 papers), Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications (289 papers) and Counseling, Therapy, and Family Dynamics (281 papers). The most active scholars publishing in British Journal of Guidance and Counselling are Donald E. Super, Peter Hudson, Anthony Watts, Sandra E. Taylor, Linda L. Caldwell, Catherine Hakim, Ann Macaskill, Frank P. Deane, Bill Law and Joseph Ciarrochi.
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.