Journal of Statistical Mechanics Theory and Experiment
3.4k papers
receiving
69.0k citations
Peers
Journal of Statistical Mechanics Theory and Experiment
Comparison fields: 5 of 238
Statistical and Nonlinear Physics27.6k
Condensed Matter Physics14.7k
Computational Mathematics468
Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics19.8k
Mathematical Physics4.5k
Replace Physical review. E with:
Physical review. EUnited States
Journal of the Franklin InstituteChina
Proceedings of the IEEEUnited States
Journal of Physics A Mathematical and TheoreticalUnited States
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering SciencesUnited Kingdom
The European Physical Journal BGermany
Proceedings of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering SciencesUnited Kingdom
SIAM Journal on Applied MathematicsUnited States
New Journal of PhysicsGermany
Computer Physics CommunicationsUnited States
Journal of Statistical Mechanics Theory and Experimentrelative toPhysical review. EUnited StatesPhysical review. E's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×2×2.9×
Physical review. E · 1×
×0.528k/59kSNP
×0.615k/27kCMP
×1.8468/257CM
×0.520k/40kAMPO
×0.75k/6kMP
Citations per year
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
Countries where authors publish in Journal of Statistical Mechanics Theory and Experiment
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Journal of Statistical Mechanics Theory and Experiment. 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 Journal of Statistical Mechanics Theory and Experiment with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Journal of Statistical Mechanics Theory and Experiment more than expected).
Fields of papers published in Journal of Statistical Mechanics Theory and Experiment
This network shows the impact of papers published in Journal of Statistical Mechanics Theory and Experiment. 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 Journal of Statistical Mechanics Theory and Experiment.
About Journal of Statistical Mechanics Theory and Experiment
The 3.6k papers published in Journal of Statistical Mechanics Theory and Experiment in the last decades have received a total of 71.0k indexed citations . Papers published in Journal of Statistical Mechanics Theory and Experiment usually cover Statistical and Nonlinear Physics (1.6k papers), Condensed Matter Physics (1.2k papers), Mathematical Physics (586 papers), Statistics and Probability (268 papers) and Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics (902 papers) specifically the topics of Theoretical and Computational Physics (984 papers), Advanced Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics (540 papers), Stochastic processes and statistical mechanics (537 papers), Quantum many-body systems (507 papers), Complex Network Analysis Techniques (415 papers), Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence (342 papers), Material Dynamics and Properties (331 papers) and stochastic dynamics and bifurcation (303 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Journal of Statistical Mechanics Theory and Experiment are Vincent D. Blondel, Jean‐Loup Guillaume, Renaud Lambiotte, Pasquale Calabrese, John Cardy, M. B. Hastings, Bernard Derrida, Albert Dı́az-Guilera, León Danon and Àlex Arenas.
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.