Countries where authors publish in Brain Tumor Pathology
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Brain Tumor Pathology. 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 Brain Tumor Pathology with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Brain Tumor Pathology more than expected).
Fields of papers published in Brain Tumor Pathology
This network shows the impact of papers published in Brain Tumor Pathology. 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 Brain Tumor Pathology.
About Brain Tumor Pathology
The 694 papers published in Brain Tumor Pathology in the last decades have received a total of 10.8k indexed citations . Papers published in Brain Tumor Pathology usually cover Genetics (402 papers), Neurology (220 papers) and Cancer Research (120 papers) specifically the topics of Glioma Diagnosis and Treatment (399 papers), Meningioma and schwannoma management (123 papers), Neurofibromatosis and Schwannoma Cases (86 papers), Neuroblastoma Research and Treatments (72 papers), Brain Metastases and Treatment (66 papers), Sarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment (50 papers), Chromatin Remodeling and Cancer (44 papers) and Vascular Malformations Diagnosis and Treatment (42 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Brain Tumor Pathology are Koichi Ichimura, Yoshihiko Yoshii, Yukinari Kato, Hiroshi Nishioka, Naoko Inoshita, Shingo Takano, Yoichi Nakazato, Isao Date, Tomotsugu Ichikawa and Kazuhiko Kurozumi.
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.