Countries where authors publish in Clinical Endoscopy
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Clinical Endoscopy. 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 Clinical Endoscopy with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Clinical Endoscopy more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers published in Clinical Endoscopy. 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 Clinical Endoscopy.
About Clinical Endoscopy
The 2.0k papers published in Clinical Endoscopy in the last decades have received a total of 16.0k indexed citations . Papers published in Clinical Endoscopy usually cover Gastroenterology (588 papers), Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine (1.1k papers), Surgery (1.4k papers), Oncology (563 papers) and Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine (55 papers) specifically the topics of Gastric Cancer Management and Outcomes (548 papers), Gastrointestinal disorders and treatments (394 papers), Esophageal and GI Pathology (394 papers), Gastrointestinal Tumor Research and Treatment (365 papers), Gallbladder and Bile Duct Disorders (294 papers), Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research (279 papers), Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection (212 papers) and Gastrointestinal Bleeding Diagnosis and Treatment (189 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Clinical Endoscopy are Ron R. Allison, K. Moghissi, Michel Kahaleh, Tsuneo Oyama, Hyun Ho Choi, Gwang Ha Kim, Young Key Shim, Il Yoon, Jiazhu Li and Jae Young Jang.
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.