Clinical Case Studies

653 papers and 4.7k indexed citations i.

About

The 653 papers published in Clinical Case Studies in the last decades have received a total of 4.7k indexed citations. Papers published in Clinical Case Studies usually cover Clinical Psychology (516 papers), Psychiatry and Mental health (167 papers) and Cognitive Neuroscience (153 papers) specifically the topics of Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development (169 papers), Autism Spectrum Disorder Research (114 papers) and Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes (110 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Clinical Case Studies are Joanne L. Davis, Rochelle F. Hanson, Rachael M. Swopes, Lisa DeMarni Cromer, Cameo Borntrager, Kathleen Armstrong, Eva R. Kimonis, Derek R. Hopko, Steven C. Hayes and Sonja V. Batten.

In The Last Decade

Fields of papers published in Clinical Case Studies

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers published in Clinical Case Studies. 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 Case Studies.

Countries where authors publish in Clinical Case Studies

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Clinical Case Studies. 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 Case Studies with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Clinical Case Studies more than expected).

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.

Explore journals with similar magnitude of impact

Rankless by CCL
2025