Countries where authors publish in Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine. 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 Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine more than expected).
Fields of papers published in Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine
This network shows the impact of papers published in Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine. 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 Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine.
About Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine
The 244 papers published in Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine in the last decades have received a total of 4.3k indexed citations . Papers published in Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine usually cover Family Practice (12 papers), Philosophy (49 papers) and Medical Terminology (1 paper) specifically the topics of Ethics in medical practice (49 papers), Mental Health and Psychiatry (46 papers) and Empathy and Medical Education (36 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine are Ray Greek, Jean Greek, Niall Shanks, Johanna Shapiro, John P. A. Ioannidis, James Giordano, Tim Thornton, Mohamed Y. Rady, Somogy Varga and Terry Hill.
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.