This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Library trends. 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 Library trends with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Library trends more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers published in Library trends. 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 Library trends.
About Library trends
The 1.8k papers published in Library trends in the last decades have received a total of 21.9k indexed citations . Papers published in Library trends usually cover Library and Information Sciences (443 papers), Conservation (90 papers), Information Systems (362 papers), History and Philosophy of Science (17 papers) and History (29 papers) specifically the topics of Library Science and Administration (298 papers), Library Science and Information (190 papers), Library Science and Information Literacy (145 papers), Digital and Traditional Archives Management (85 papers), Library Science and Information Systems (59 papers), Library Collection Development and Digital Resources (45 papers), Libraries, Manuscripts, and Books (28 papers) and Web and Library Services (24 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Library trends are Marilyn Domas White, Emily Marsh, He Qin, P. Bryan Heidorn, Don Fallis, Wolfgang Glänzel, Lynda Baker, Hope A. Olson, Tefko Saračević and Barbara H. Kwaśnik.
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.