Countries where authors publish in Practical Neurology
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Practical Neurology. 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 Practical Neurology with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Practical Neurology more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers published in Practical Neurology. 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 Practical Neurology.
About Practical Neurology
The 1.4k papers published in Practical Neurology in the last decades have received a total of 15.7k indexed citations . Papers published in Practical Neurology usually cover Neurology (551 papers), Neurology (136 papers), Psychiatry and Mental health (243 papers), Medical Terminology (3 papers) and Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience (198 papers) specifically the topics of Peripheral Neuropathies and Disorders (106 papers), Epilepsy research and treatment (93 papers), Autoimmune Neurological Disorders and Treatments (80 papers), Genetic Neurodegenerative Diseases (76 papers), Neurological disorders and treatments (72 papers), Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis (64 papers), Ophthalmology and Eye Disorders (61 papers) and Neurological and metabolic disorders (61 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Practical Neurology are Jon Stone, John Stewart, Astrid Nehlig, Michael O’Sullivan, Neil Scolding, Gavin Giovannoni, Benjamin R. Wakerley, Martin R. Turner, Kevin Talbot and Alison J. E. Green.
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.