Countries where authors publish in Progress in Planning
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Progress in Planning. 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 Progress in Planning with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Progress in Planning more than expected).
Fields of papers published in Progress in Planning
This network shows the impact of papers published in Progress in Planning. 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 Progress in Planning.
About Progress in Planning
The 439 papers published in Progress in Planning in the last decades have received a total of 17.6k indexed citations . Papers published in Progress in Planning usually cover Urban Studies (152 papers), Transportation (43 papers), Finance (61 papers), Political Science and International Relations (76 papers) and Economics and Econometrics (86 papers) specifically the topics of Urban Planning and Governance (94 papers), Housing, Finance, and Neoliberalism (61 papers), Urbanization and City Planning (45 papers), Urban Transport and Accessibility (37 papers), Urban and Rural Development Challenges (37 papers), Housing Market and Economics (32 papers), Land Use and Ecosystem Services (28 papers) and Regional Economics and Spatial Analysis (27 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Progress in Planning are Jacek Malczewski, Vanessa Watson, Tore Sager, John Rogan, Petter Næss, Mark Roseland, Dongmei Chen, Bryan H. Massam, Shlomo Angel and Fulong Wu.
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.