Countries where authors publish in Forensic Chemistry
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Forensic Chemistry. 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 Forensic Chemistry with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Forensic Chemistry more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers published in Forensic Chemistry. 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 Forensic Chemistry.
About Forensic Chemistry
The 580 papers published in Forensic Chemistry in the last decades have received a total of 6.3k indexed citations . Papers published in Forensic Chemistry usually cover Toxicology (198 papers), Safety Research (132 papers), Spectroscopy (203 papers), Analytical Chemistry (95 papers) and Archeology (83 papers) specifically the topics of Forensic Toxicology and Drug Analysis (198 papers), Mass Spectrometry Techniques and Applications (161 papers), Forensic Fingerprint Detection Methods (132 papers), Forensic and Genetic Research (83 papers), Analytical Chemistry and Chromatography (71 papers), Advanced Chemical Sensor Technologies (68 papers), Cultural Heritage Materials Analysis (68 papers) and Metabolomics and Mass Spectrometry Studies (61 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Forensic Chemistry are Edward Sisco, Igor K. Lednev, José R. Almirall, Kyle C. Doty, J. Tyler Davidson, Tatiana Trejos, Glen P. Jackson, Thomas P. Forbes, Claire K. Muro and Candice Bridge.
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.