This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Sarcoma. 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 Sarcoma with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Sarcoma more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers published in Sarcoma. 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 Sarcoma.
About Sarcoma
The 714 papers published in Sarcoma in the last decades have received a total of 15.0k indexed citations . Papers published in Sarcoma usually cover Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine (587 papers), Rheumatology (252 papers) and Oncology (267 papers) specifically the topics of Sarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment (578 papers), Bone Tumor Diagnosis and Treatments (187 papers), Vascular Tumors and Angiosarcomas (145 papers), Cardiac tumors and thrombi (122 papers), Management of metastatic bone disease (55 papers), Lymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment (52 papers), Musculoskeletal synovial abnormalities and treatments (43 papers) and Soft tissue tumor case studies (39 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Sarcoma are R. J. Grimer, Ian Judson, Heinrich Kovar, Sharon A. Savage, D. Peake, Peter Choong, Beatrice Seddon, Jeremy A. Squire, Jeff W. Martin and Maria Zieleńska.
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.