Countries where authors publish in Historical Biology
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Historical Biology. 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 Historical Biology with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Historical Biology more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers published in Historical Biology. 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 Historical Biology.
About Historical Biology
The 2.2k papers published in Historical Biology in the last decades have received a total of 24.4k indexed citations . Papers published in Historical Biology usually cover Paleontology (1.7k papers), Nature and Landscape Conservation (609 papers) and Anthropology (287 papers) specifically the topics of Evolution and Paleontology Studies (1.1k papers), Paleontology and Evolutionary Biology (881 papers), Ichthyology and Marine Biology (517 papers), Paleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils (401 papers), Pleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology (283 papers), Geology and Paleoclimatology Research (268 papers), Fossil Insects in Amber (192 papers) and Bat Biology and Ecology Studies (183 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Historical Biology are George O. Poinar, Adam Urbánek, A. Hallam, Adolf Seilacher, Andrei A. Legalov, Cajus G. Diedrich, José F. Bonaparte, James O. Farlow, Paul D. Taylor and Sterling J. Nesbitt.
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.