Countries where authors publish in Techniques in Orthopaedics
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Techniques in Orthopaedics. 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 Techniques in Orthopaedics with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Techniques in Orthopaedics more than expected).
Fields of papers published in Techniques in Orthopaedics
This network shows the impact of papers published in Techniques in Orthopaedics. 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 Techniques in Orthopaedics.
About Techniques in Orthopaedics
The 1.3k papers published in Techniques in Orthopaedics in the last decades have received a total of 7.2k indexed citations . Papers published in Techniques in Orthopaedics usually cover Orthopedics and Sports Medicine (221 papers), Surgery (1.1k papers) and Rehabilitation (155 papers) specifically the topics of Bone fractures and treatments (312 papers), Orthopaedic implants and arthroplasty (284 papers), Orthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation (281 papers), Total Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes (259 papers), Shoulder Injury and Treatment (180 papers), Hip and Femur Fractures (164 papers), Knee injuries and reconstruction techniques (159 papers) and Orthopedic Infections and Treatments (146 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Techniques in Orthopaedics are Lawrence D. Dorr, Thomas Sampson, Richard B. Caspari, Dror Paley, Scott A. Rodeo, Russell F. Warren, J. Norgrove Penny, Stuart A. Green, Clifford W. Colwell and Mary E. Hardwick.
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.