Countries where authors publish in Software Testing Verification and Reliability
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Software Testing Verification and Reliability. 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 Software Testing Verification and Reliability with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Software Testing Verification and Reliability more than expected).
Fields of papers published in Software Testing Verification and Reliability
This network shows the impact of papers published in Software Testing Verification and Reliability. 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 Software Testing Verification and Reliability.
About Software Testing Verification and Reliability
The 545 papers published in Software Testing Verification and Reliability in the last decades have received a total of 13.9k indexed citations . Papers published in Software Testing Verification and Reliability usually cover Software (459 papers), Information Systems (268 papers) and Hardware and Architecture (52 papers) specifically the topics of Software Testing and Debugging Techniques (405 papers), Software Reliability and Analysis Research (320 papers) and Software Engineering Research (241 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Software Testing Verification and Reliability are Phil McMinn, Mark Harman, Shin Yoo, Jeff Offutt, Andrea Arcuri, Mary Jean Harrold, Lionel Briand, A. Jefferson Offutt, Yong Rae Kwon and Yu‐Seung Ma.
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.