Countries where authors publish in Journal of Neurological Surgery Part B Skull Base
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Journal of Neurological Surgery Part B Skull Base. 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 Journal of Neurological Surgery Part B Skull Base with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Journal of Neurological Surgery Part B Skull Base more than expected).
Fields of papers published in Journal of Neurological Surgery Part B Skull Base
This network shows the impact of papers published in Journal of Neurological Surgery Part B Skull Base. 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 Journal of Neurological Surgery Part B Skull Base.
About Journal of Neurological Surgery Part B Skull Base
The 2.1k papers published in Journal of Neurological Surgery Part B Skull Base in the last decades have received a total of 12.2k indexed citations . Papers published in Journal of Neurological Surgery Part B Skull Base usually cover Otorhinolaryngology (280 papers), Neurology (671 papers) and Surgery (1.4k papers) specifically the topics of Head and Neck Surgical Oncology (1.1k papers), Meningioma and schwannoma management (978 papers) and Pituitary Gland Disorders and Treatments (492 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Journal of Neurological Surgery Part B Skull Base are Juan C. Fernandez‐Miranda, Michael J. Link, Ian Brown, Eric W. Wang, Benedict Panizza, Paul A. Gardner, William Gump, Carl H. Snyderman, Lee A. Zimmer and Matthew L. Carlson.
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.