Countries where authors publish in Powder Diffraction
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Powder Diffraction. 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 Powder Diffraction with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Powder Diffraction more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers published in Powder Diffraction. 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 Powder Diffraction.
About Powder Diffraction
The 2.0k papers published in Powder Diffraction in the last decades have received a total of 25.3k indexed citations . Papers published in Powder Diffraction usually cover Physical and Theoretical Chemistry (331 papers), Materials Chemistry (1.5k papers) and Electronic, Optical and Magnetic Materials (487 papers) specifically the topics of X-ray Diffraction in Crystallography (1.2k papers), Crystal Structures and Properties (348 papers), Crystallography and molecular interactions (320 papers), Nuclear materials and radiation effects (192 papers), X-ray Spectroscopy and Fluorescence Analysis (143 papers), Advanced Condensed Matter Physics (140 papers), Chemical Synthesis and Characterization (129 papers) and Thermal and Kinetic Analysis (104 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Powder Diffraction are Brian H. Toby, A. Le Bail, Thomas N. Blanton, John Taylor, Stacy Gates-Rector, Robert L. Snyder, C. R. Hubbard, W. Wong‐Ng, Deane K. Smith and James A. Kaduk.
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.