Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law
Are you a researcher?
Create a profile to get free access to personal recommendations for colleagues and new articles.
SCImago
Q1
WOS
Q1
Impact factor
3.3
SJR
1.647
CiteScore
7.3
Categories
Health Policy
Areas
Medicine
Years of issue
1976-2025
journal names
Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law
J HEALTH POLIT POLIC
Top-3 citing journals

Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law
(2027 citations)

Social Science and Medicine
(747 citations)

Health Affairs
(514 citations)
Top-3 organizations

Columbia University
(31 publications)

Harvard University
(31 publications)

Brown University
(30 publications)

Harvard University
(18 publications)

University of Michigan
(18 publications)

Cornell University
(13 publications)
Top-3 countries
Most cited in 5 years
Found
Publications found: 8802
Q1

Are Forced Migrant Trajectories Path-Dependent? A Markov Analysis
Haller L.
This study evaluates whether the trajectories of forced migrants, specifically Syrian refugees moving towards Germany, exhibit path dependency—meaning that their migration decisions are influenced by past events and their previous migration experiences. Using data from the IAB-BAMF-SOEP survey of refugees, this article investigates whether these migration trajectories adhere to a Markov process, where the likelihood of future migrations depends solely on the current state. By employing global and local Markov score tests, the article systematically tests the Markov assumption across different migration routes, focusing on Turkey, Lebanon, and Egypt as transit countries. The findings indicate that shorter, reactive migrations from Syria to Lebanon and Turkey exhibit path dependency, meaning their likelihood is influenced by recent events. Conversely, longer, logistically complex migrations, such as from Syria to Egypt and from transit countries to Germany, adhere to the Markov property, suggesting path independence. This distinction highlights the impact of route difficulty and destination accessibility on migration behaviors. The implications of the findings are also significant for the use of the Markov property in computational models of migration. Researchers should exercise caution when applying the Markov assumption indiscriminately across different migration contexts, as its validity can vary based on external factors such as policy changes and route accessibility.
Q1

Travel Bloggers as ‘Digital Nomads’–How Can Understanding This Lifestyle Migration Help us to Think About the Future of Work, Migration and Technology?
Willment N.
This paper draws on qualitative, empirical research conducted with nineteen British travel bloggers as distinctive examples of digital nomads, involved in unique forms of lifestyle migration. The paper analyses travel bloggers’ working lives, paying attention to how travel bloggers own migration geographies inextricably entwine with their digital labour. The paper makes three key contributions to the literature on digital nomadism and lifestyle migration. Firstly, the paper highlights how travel bloggers personal migration geographies are a key resource in travel bloggers commodified performances of digital nomadism to their online audiences. Secondly, that travel bloggers encounter ‘frictions’ associated with this intersection of migration geographies and digital work, namely issues of overwork, mental health struggles and instability of digital platforms. Thirdly, that although travel bloggers may understand themselves as lifestyle migrants, there is limited reflection on how, their own, privileged migration geographies may impact upon other migrants or communities. Within the conclusion, these reflections are used to ponder what travel blogging as a form of lifestyle migration may allow us to consider about the future of work, digital technologies and migration.
Q1

Imagined Exit as Voice: Americans’ Emigration Aspirations Under Obama and Trump
Marrow H.B., Klekowski von Koppenfels A.
This article interrogates whether, and if so how, political factors underlie the migration aspirations of US-born citizens—a group of people often assumed to have the privilege and options to relocate elsewhere, typically “voluntarily” and for a mix of economic or social/cultural/lifestyle reasons, rather than being pushed out politically by war, revolution, or violence. Drawing on a unique, nationally-representative panel of 1,764 US-born citizens surveyed in 2014 and 2019, and despite many media suggesting the contrary, we show that the overall prevalence and distribution of Americans’ migration aspirations period actually stayed stable during this volatile time period. Nevertheless, we do uncover evidence that political considerations do shape what aspirations US-born citizens do express, with both weaker national attachment and liberal political ideology consistently raising their odds, and political engagement operating in different directions, depending on panelists’ ideological affiliations and the specific governing regime. We discuss the relevance of these findings for literature on migration aspirations from the Global North, multicausal theories of migration, and the relationship between Hirschman’s classic concepts of loyalty, voice, and exit.
Q1

Marriage Channels, Temporal Inequality, and Migration Decision-Making Agency: Vietnamese Marriage Migrants in Asia
Chang H., Choi S.Y.
Recent scholarship has examined the multiple dimensions of structural and cultural inequalities that impact the well-being of intra-Asia marriage migrants in both sending and receiving countries. One missing mechanism that may shape varied patterns of pre- and post-migration inequalities — the different marriage channels that facilitate different types of encounters between prospective brides from emerging economies and prospective grooms from advanced economies — deserves more theoretical and empirical attention. Based on over 100 life-history interviews with Vietnamese marriage migrants in Taiwan and South Korea, our analysis shows how women's meeting their foreign spouse through personal encounters, introduction networks, or commercial brokers denotes their relatively advantaged, constrained, or disadvantaged structural and cultural circumstances and, in turn, shapes the time available for them for expressing decision-making agency. We argue that marriage channel serves as an intermediate stratifying mechanism — an unequal space, reflecting migrant women's differential socioeconomic positions and gendered familial obligations in Vietnam and shaping a hidden dimension of inequality — temporal inequality — that is embedded in the processes of migration decision-making across different marriage channels. Our theorization of marriage channels and how they reflect the interplay between time for expressing agency and socio-cultural circumstances illuminates a comprehensive contextualization of the social phenomenon of intra-Asia marriage migration in the pre-migration phase. Through considering how both economic and non-economic factors shape marriage migration decision-making processes and their impacts on women's time for expressing agency across different marriage channels, our study contributes to scholarship on gender, time and women's agency, intra-Asia marriage migration, and international migration decision-making.
Q1

Book Review: Time and Power in Azraq Refugee Camp
Atar E.
Q1
International Migration Review
,
2025
,
citations by CoLab: 0

Q1

Bolstering Autocracy, Hindering Democracy: Local Stakeholders’ Perspectives on the Effects of EU Migration Policy Externalization in Morocco
Faustini Torres L.
This article explores how the European Union's (EU) externalization of migration policies affects democratization in Morocco, drawing on the perspectives of local stakeholders, including government officials, civil society actors, and frontline bureaucrats. While the EU frames its partnership with Morocco as grounded in shared and normative values, the findings show that migration (control) priorities often take precedence over democratic reforms. Using a multilevel theoretical framework that combines structural factors (linkage, leverage, and organizational power) with the agency of domestic actors (gatekeeper elites and street-level bureaucrats), the analysis identifies three key dynamics: the prioritization of migration control over democratic progress, the consolidation of Morocco's authoritarian power through the externalization bargain, and the marginalization of civil society and migrants, intensifying their repression and curtailing their capacity to advocate for change. Based on qualitative fieldwork, this study highlights how these policies redistribute resources and power in ways that bolster autocratic structures and hinder democratic reform. By focusing on the lived experiences of local stakeholders, the article sheds light on how the EU's approach to migration can inadvertently undermine democratization in Morocco.
Q1

The Freedom Paradox: Meanings and Configurations of Digital Nomadic Work
Toivanen M.
The digitalization of professions and the new modes of (remote) work have resulted in an increase in work-related lifestyle mobilities such as digital nomadism. This paper deals with the meanings and configurations of digital nomadic work as recounted by digital nomads themselves. What meanings do digital nomads attach to digital nomadic work? What spatial or other configurations does digital nomadic work entail? What does the examination of meanings attached to digital nomadic work and its configurations tell us more broadly about the rising phenomenon of work on the move? The study data come from qualitative interviews with twenty digital nomads in Mallorca, Spain (2021–2022) and from observation in co-working and co-living spaces, networking meetings, and informal get-togethers. Although the nomads often described digital nomadic work as the opposite to traditional and classical nine-to-five office work, I argue that it should not be approached as such. The study findings show that despite expressing a strong anti-office sentiment and describing digital nomadic work as a way to escape “traditional office work,” digital nomads paradoxically end up “mimicking” and replicating the organizational aspects of office-based work. A closer examination of digital nomadic work's spatial configurations further shows that it has distinct temporal, material and performative dimensions, which is why it deserves analysis in its own right. More research is needed on the paradoxical aspects of digital nomadic work for us to understand whether digital nomadism, as a precursor to work-related mobilities, speaks of broader trends in mobile, digitalized work.
Q1

Gender, Displacement, and the Ethics of Protection
Riggirozzi P., Cintra N., Owen D.
Focusing on the flight of women and girls from Venezuela to Brazil, and on South American refugee regimes, this paper addresses the ethics of forced displacement and the requirements of gender-responsive systems of protection. The analysis centers the voices of displaced women brought in through fieldwork in Manaus and Boa Vista, Brazil, in 2020–2022, to identify gaps and negative effects of gender-blind provision of shelter, healthcare, and other services at crossing and reception. We argue that current approaches to protection privilege humanitarian responses to victims, whereas any efforts to break cycles of deprivation and exclusion affecting displaced women and girls should privilege determinants of relational autonomy and the social agency of displaced women and girls. By developing this analysis, we contribute directly to feminist critiques of refugee protection, and reconstruct (based on migrant women's perspectives and feminist work on relational autonomy) key elements of a gendered account of protection that centers on the recognition of autonomy.
Q1

The Green Card Drag: How Highly Skilled Asian Indian Immigrants Experience the US Immigration System
Gambol B., Zvobgo V., Sabharwal M.
Foreign-born Asian Indians in the United States are among the most highly educated and highly paid. A major facilitator of this population's migration has been the H-1B, a temporary work visa that has brought in foreign scientists and engineers since 1990. Immigration scholarship would regard H-1Bs’ high socioeconomic status as a factor that smooths their integration. Yet an aspect usually not associated with high-skilled migrants–legality–may be compromising the assimilation of Asian Indian professionals: over a million are “waiting in line,” or in queue, for legal permanent residency. The delay is significant. Asian Indians have the longest wait among all nationalities, and it is only becoming increasingly longer; scholars argue that many Asian Indians, especially newcomers, will never get a green card. Drawing on 40 semi-structured interviews with US technology workers from India, the following study is among the first of its kind: it examines how Asian Indians’ experience their temporary status, or “liminal legality.” Findings show that they encounter “legal dragging”: they are in line for a green card but are given no specific acquisition date. The legal dragging of the green card process leads to feelings of stagnation, uncertainty, and frustration. Furthermore, these feelings are gendered: women experience the additional worry of having to go back to a country where they will encounter greater gender inequality. Findings illustrate that legal status plays a role in Asian Indian lives and that it can impede on the mobility of the highly skilled.
Q1

Book Review: “Migration, Mobility and the Creative Class.”
Stock I.
Q1
International Migration Review
,
2025
,
citations by CoLab: 0

Q1

Digital Nomadism and the Emergence of Digital Nomad Visas: What Policy Objectives Do States Aim to Achieve?
KC H., Triandafyllidou A.
Digital nomads who travel internationally while working remotely with digital technologies constitute a small but increasing migrant population that has attracted significant research attention lately. Since 2020, there is also a corresponding rise of “digital nomad” visas adopted by several countries around the world to cater for this type of global mobility and even to attract digital nomads. This paper reviews the resurgence of digital nomadism and a concomitant emergence of digital nomad visas to analyze how and why they emerged. The findings allow for categorizations of such policies in terms of their heterogeneity of designs, objectives, and implications. Our findings reveal that the states offering digital nomad visas have designed their visas either through creating a brand new or an adaptive policy approach — the choice of the policy design approach explains the states’ policy priorities. Our analysis shows that digital nomad visas are motivated by three broader socioeconomic interests of the visa issuing countries which include the promotion of tourism, attraction of foreign investments and entrepreneurship, and talent acquisition through a migration policy model. Furthermore, the digital nomad visas invoke the notion of “hypermobility” and permeability of state borders in light of widespread adoptions of digital technologies in work and employment; however, there are paradoxes and contradictions embedded within these policies which manifest through restrictive and exclusionary criteria based on wealth, skills, and nationality. The paper concludes with some critical observations on the novelty of digital nomad visas as a novel migration regime.
Q1

Regional Economic Communities and Attitudes Toward Free Cross-Border Movement in Africa
Zimbalist Z.
Contrary to narratives in the media, most African migrants move across borders within the continent, and most often to other countries in their immediate region. Drawing on a sample of roughly 43,000 people from 36 African countries, this article uses multilevel models to investigate the factors influencing support for either free cross-border movement or government restrictions on immigration. In contrast to previous studies, this article illuminates the substantial importance of regional economic communities within Africa and associated policies around mobility and labor market integration. Empirically, the quantitative results demonstrate that individual support for open borders is significantly higher in regional blocs with well-established free movement protocols and supportive policies, compared to those residing in blocs with more restrictive mobility and labor market integration policies. To better understand the country-level variation within these blocs, I draw on secondary literature to highlight the importance of certain economic, demographic, and security considerations, which likely both shape and reflect citizens’ attitudes toward open borders. This is a novel contribution to the public attitudes toward immigration policy literature, which has neglected the importance of regional frameworks even though they are a crucial instrument in determining national-level migration and integration policy within Africa and beyond.
Q1

Book Review: Noncitizen Power
Movileanu D.
Q1
International Migration Review
,
2025
,
citations by CoLab: 0

Q1

A Global Panel Dataset of Dyadic Dual Citizenship Acceptance
Vink M., van der Baaren L., Reichel D.
Dual citizenship provides access to secure legal status and rights in more than one country for an unprecedented number of migrants and their descendants worldwide. While this double allegiance requires matching legal regulations between two states, existing studies of dual citizenship typically focus on migrant origin or destination perspectives. To explore this phenomenon's dyadic nature, we introduce a procedure that leverages existing monadic data on two distinct types of dual citizenship restrictions: origin country restrictions on the loss of citizenship by citizens naturalizing abroad and destination country restrictions requiring foreigners acquiring citizenship in a country to renounce any other citizenship. We add novel data on dyad-specific regulations in place in nearly 13 thousand country-country-year combinations. This results in a global panel dataset of the regulation of dual citizenship in 1.8 million directed dyad-year observations in place between 201 states back to 1960. An open access replication script allows reproducing and updating the dyadic dataset with new available data. We identify regulatory trends and present estimates of the number and proportion of global migrants affected by changing policy constellations and variation in acceptance across political regimes. We show that migrants are more likely to acquire destination country citizenship and thus achieve democratic representation in constellations where they can maintain a legal link with their origin country.
Q1

Age at Migration and the Political Integration of Immigrants — Evidence From a Sibling Analysis
Andersson H., Dehdari S., Lindgren K.O.
We study the effect of age at migration among immigrants in Sweden on political participation as adults. To identify the effect, we use validated individual turnout data over three elections in Sweden (1994, 2010, and 2018), and compare outcomes among siblings who arrive at the same time but at different ages. We document a clear effect on political participation from early arrival: immigrants arriving in early childhood (ages 0–5) are about 5 to 10 percentage points more likely to partake in national elections as adults compared to immigrants arriving later (ages 12–17) during their childhood. We further show that the effect is partially persistent over the life-cycle.
Top-100
Citing journals
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
|
|
Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law
2027 citations, 7.09%
|
|
Social Science and Medicine
747 citations, 2.61%
|
|
Health Affairs
514 citations, 1.8%
|
|
SSRN Electronic Journal
487 citations, 1.7%
|
|
Health Policy
437 citations, 1.53%
|
|
American Journal of Public Health
364 citations, 1.27%
|
|
Health Services Research
244 citations, 0.85%
|
|
Policy Studies Journal
227 citations, 0.79%
|
|
Milbank Quarterly
227 citations, 0.79%
|
|
Medical Care Research and Review
211 citations, 0.74%
|
|
Health Economics, Policy and Law
201 citations, 0.7%
|
|
Journal of Health Economics
182 citations, 0.64%
|
|
Medical Care
179 citations, 0.63%
|
|
International Journal of Health Services
161 citations, 0.56%
|
|
BMC Health Services Research
156 citations, 0.55%
|
|
PLoS ONE
151 citations, 0.53%
|
|
Inquiry (United States)
143 citations, 0.5%
|
|
New England Journal of Medicine
142 citations, 0.5%
|
|
Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics
136 citations, 0.48%
|
|
Journal of General Internal Medicine
120 citations, 0.42%
|
|
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
119 citations, 0.42%
|
|
Health Policy and Planning
100 citations, 0.35%
|
|
BMC Public Health
100 citations, 0.35%
|
|
Publius
97 citations, 0.34%
|
|
Health Economics (United Kingdom)
96 citations, 0.34%
|
|
Frontiers in Public Health
92 citations, 0.32%
|
|
Social Policy and Administration
91 citations, 0.32%
|
|
International Journal of Health Planning and Management
91 citations, 0.32%
|
|
World Medical and Health Policy
89 citations, 0.31%
|
|
American Journal of Law and Medicine
89 citations, 0.31%
|
|
Annual Review of Public Health
85 citations, 0.3%
|
|
Journal of Aging and Social Policy
74 citations, 0.26%
|
|
The Gerontologist
72 citations, 0.25%
|
|
BMJ Open
71 citations, 0.25%
|
|
Journal of Public Health Management and Practice
71 citations, 0.25%
|
|
Health Care Management Review
69 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice
68 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Journal of Health and Human Services Administration
64 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Health Communication
64 citations, 0.22%
|
|
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
60 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Sociology of Health and Illness
60 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Journal of Rural Health
58 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Journal of Health Organization and Management
58 citations, 0.2%
|
|
The Lancet
57 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Journal of Politics
56 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Review of Policy Research
56 citations, 0.2%
|
|
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
56 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Pediatrics
56 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Health Expectations
56 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research
55 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Journal of Legal Medicine
52 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Health Services Management Research
51 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
50 citations, 0.17%
|
|
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry
48 citations, 0.17%
|
|
European Journal of Health Economics
48 citations, 0.17%
|
|
American Journal of Bioethics
45 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Public Administration Review
44 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Health Care Analysis
43 citations, 0.15%
|
|
State Politics and Policy Quarterly
42 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Handbook of Health Economics
42 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
41 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Women's Health Issues
41 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Administration and Society
41 citations, 0.14%
|
|
JAMA Health Forum
41 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Health (United Kingdom)
40 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Policy, Politics, and Nursing Practice
40 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Journal of Public Policy
40 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Preventive Medicine
40 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Tobacco Control
40 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Public Administration
39 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Political Research Quarterly
38 citations, 0.13%
|
|
International Journal for Equity in Health
38 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Maternal and Child Health Journal
38 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Implementation Science
38 citations, 0.13%
|
|
International Journal of Drug Policy
37 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Journal of Health Communication
37 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Globalization and Health
37 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Hospital Topics
37 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Journal of Health Services Research and Policy
37 citations, 0.13%
|
|
BMJ
37 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Annual Review of Political Science
36 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Journal of Health and Social Behavior
36 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management
36 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities
36 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Perspectives on Politics
35 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Health Research Policy and Systems
35 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Critical Public Health
34 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Israel Journal of Health Policy Research
34 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Policy Sciences
33 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Political Behavior
33 citations, 0.12%
|
|
JAMA network open
33 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Value in Health
33 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Health Education and Behavior
33 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Research in the Sociology of Health Care
32 citations, 0.11%
|
|
American Political Science Review
32 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Applied Economics
32 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science
32 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Journal of Public Economics
32 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Revue française des affaires sociales
32 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Politics and the Life Sciences
31 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
|
Citing publishers
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
|
|
Elsevier
3818 citations, 13.36%
|
|
Wiley
3240 citations, 11.34%
|
|
Springer Nature
2670 citations, 9.34%
|
|
SAGE
2640 citations, 9.24%
|
|
Taylor & Francis
2135 citations, 7.47%
|
|
Duke University Press
2043 citations, 7.15%
|
|
Cambridge University Press
1498 citations, 5.24%
|
|
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
771 citations, 2.7%
|
|
Oxford University Press
764 citations, 2.67%
|
|
Health Affairs (Project Hope)
518 citations, 1.81%
|
|
Social Science Electronic Publishing
491 citations, 1.72%
|
|
Emerald
452 citations, 1.58%
|
|
American Public Health Association
368 citations, 1.29%
|
|
BMJ
312 citations, 1.09%
|
|
MDPI
279 citations, 0.98%
|
|
Annual Reviews
216 citations, 0.76%
|
|
Frontiers Media S.A.
204 citations, 0.71%
|
|
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
195 citations, 0.68%
|
|
American Medical Association (AMA)
158 citations, 0.55%
|
|
University of Chicago Press
146 citations, 0.51%
|
|
Massachusetts Medical Society
144 citations, 0.5%
|
|
CAIRN
133 citations, 0.47%
|
|
Mary Ann Liebert
107 citations, 0.37%
|
|
JMIR Publications
82 citations, 0.29%
|
|
SciELO
77 citations, 0.27%
|
|
IGI Global
74 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Southern Public Administration Education Foundation, Inc.
73 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Walter de Gruyter
68 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
65 citations, 0.23%
|
|
62 citations, 0.22%
|
|
American Academy of Pediatrics
61 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
40 citations, 0.14%
|
|
SLACK
40 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
34 citations, 0.12%
|
|
American Economic Association
34 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Center for the Study of the Presidency
32 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Kerman University of Medical Sciences
31 citations, 0.11%
|
|
MIT Press
29 citations, 0.1%
|
|
American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
28 citations, 0.1%
|
|
OpenEdition
26 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Mark Allen Group
25 citations, 0.09%
|
|
American Psychiatric Association Publishing
24 citations, 0.08%
|
|
Bristol University Press
23 citations, 0.08%
|
|
Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS)
22 citations, 0.08%
|
|
Hindawi Limited
22 citations, 0.08%
|
|
American Psychological Association (APA)
21 citations, 0.07%
|
|
University of Toronto Press Inc. (UTPress)
21 citations, 0.07%
|
|
Consortium Erudit
20 citations, 0.07%
|
|
National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR)
18 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Academy of Management
17 citations, 0.06%
|
|
17 citations, 0.06%
|
|
CSIRO Publishing
17 citations, 0.06%
|
|
F1000 Research
17 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Scientific Research Publishing
15 citations, 0.05%
|
|
The Korean Society of Health Policy and Administration
15 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Ubiquity Press
14 citations, 0.05%
|
|
13 citations, 0.05%
|
|
IUPUI University Library
13 citations, 0.05%
|
|
University of California Press
12 citations, 0.04%
|
|
American College of Physicians
12 citations, 0.04%
|
|
University Pub. Group
12 citations, 0.04%
|
|
World Scientific
11 citations, 0.04%
|
|
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
11 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
11 citations, 0.04%
|
|
CMA Impact Inc.
11 citations, 0.04%
|
|
American Marketing Association
10 citations, 0.03%
|
|
National Medical Association
10 citations, 0.03%
|
|
World Health Organization
10 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Research Square Platform LLC
10 citations, 0.03%
|
|
IOS Press
9 citations, 0.03%
|
|
National Association of Social Workers Press
9 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Joint Commission Resources Inc.
9 citations, 0.03%
|
|
S. Karger AG
9 citations, 0.03%
|
|
American Accounting Association
8 citations, 0.03%
|
|
American Society of Nephrology
7 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group (JNSPG)
7 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Cornell University Press
7 citations, 0.02%
|
|
7 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Technosdar Ltd
7 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Brill
6 citations, 0.02%
|
|
6 citations, 0.02%
|
|
6 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Radiological Society of North America (RSNA)
6 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Medknow
6 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Centre for Evaluation in Education and Science (CEON/CEES)
6 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Guilford Publications
6 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Edinburgh University Press
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
American Society for Microbiology
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Berkeley Electronic Press
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Eco-Vector LLC
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
American Roentgen Ray Society
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
American Society of Health-System Pharmacists
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Association of Military Surgeons of the US
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Scandinavian University Press / Universitetsforlaget AS
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Environmental Health Perspectives
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.
4 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
|
Publishing organizations
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
|
|
Columbia University
31 publications, 0.88%
|
|
Harvard University
31 publications, 0.88%
|
|
Brown University
30 publications, 0.85%
|
|
University of Michigan
27 publications, 0.77%
|
|
Boston University
26 publications, 0.74%
|
|
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
22 publications, 0.63%
|
|
University of Chicago
21 publications, 0.6%
|
|
University of Minnesota
21 publications, 0.6%
|
|
Cornell University
20 publications, 0.57%
|
|
Yale University
17 publications, 0.48%
|
|
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
17 publications, 0.48%
|
|
University of California, Los Angeles
17 publications, 0.48%
|
|
Johns Hopkins University
14 publications, 0.4%
|
|
University of Pennsylvania
14 publications, 0.4%
|
|
Case Western Reserve University
9 publications, 0.26%
|
|
University of California, Berkeley
9 publications, 0.26%
|
|
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
8 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Pennsylvania State University
8 publications, 0.23%
|
|
University of California, San Francisco
8 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Vanderbilt University
8 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Georgetown University
7 publications, 0.2%
|
|
American University
7 publications, 0.2%
|
|
University of California, Irvine
7 publications, 0.2%
|
|
Northeastern University
7 publications, 0.2%
|
|
University of Utah
7 publications, 0.2%
|
|
Syracuse University
6 publications, 0.17%
|
|
University of Washington
6 publications, 0.17%
|
|
University of Wisconsin–Madison
6 publications, 0.17%
|
|
Texas A&M University
6 publications, 0.17%
|
|
Wesleyan University
6 publications, 0.17%
|
|
University of Edinburgh
5 publications, 0.14%
|
|
George Washington University
5 publications, 0.14%
|
|
Princeton University
5 publications, 0.14%
|
|
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
5 publications, 0.14%
|
|
Indiana University Bloomington
5 publications, 0.14%
|
|
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
4 publications, 0.11%
|
|
Stanford University
4 publications, 0.11%
|
|
Ohio State University
4 publications, 0.11%
|
|
Brigham and Women's Hospital
4 publications, 0.11%
|
|
University of California, San Diego
4 publications, 0.11%
|
|
University of California, Davis
4 publications, 0.11%
|
|
McGill University
4 publications, 0.11%
|
|
Dartmouth College
4 publications, 0.11%
|
|
Temple University
4 publications, 0.11%
|
|
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
3 publications, 0.09%
|
|
University of Southern California
3 publications, 0.09%
|
|
University of Illinois at Chicago
3 publications, 0.09%
|
|
George Mason University
3 publications, 0.09%
|
|
Duke University
3 publications, 0.09%
|
|
Tufts University
3 publications, 0.09%
|
|
University of Texas at Austin
3 publications, 0.09%
|
|
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
3 publications, 0.09%
|
|
Marquette University
3 publications, 0.09%
|
|
University of Bremen
3 publications, 0.09%
|
|
University of Maryland, College Park
3 publications, 0.09%
|
|
University of Sheffield
3 publications, 0.09%
|
|
Erasmus University Rotterdam
3 publications, 0.09%
|
|
Wake Forest University
3 publications, 0.09%
|
|
University of Houston
3 publications, 0.09%
|
|
University of Bath
3 publications, 0.09%
|
|
Grenoble Alpes University
2 publications, 0.06%
|
|
University of Cambridge
2 publications, 0.06%
|
|
Aarhus University
2 publications, 0.06%
|
|
City, University of London
2 publications, 0.06%
|
|
Drexel University
2 publications, 0.06%
|
|
University of Glasgow
2 publications, 0.06%
|
|
European University Institute
2 publications, 0.06%
|
|
Northwestern University
2 publications, 0.06%
|
|
West Virginia University
2 publications, 0.06%
|
|
New York University
2 publications, 0.06%
|
|
University of California, Santa Cruz
2 publications, 0.06%
|
|
Ohio University
2 publications, 0.06%
|
|
Tulane University
2 publications, 0.06%
|
|
McMaster University
2 publications, 0.06%
|
|
University of Amsterdam
2 publications, 0.06%
|
|
Johannes Kepler University of Linz
2 publications, 0.06%
|
|
University of Wisconsin–Oshkosh
2 publications, 0.06%
|
|
Lehigh University
2 publications, 0.06%
|
|
University of Kentucky
2 publications, 0.06%
|
|
Louisiana State University
2 publications, 0.06%
|
|
University of Cincinnati
2 publications, 0.06%
|
|
University of Delaware
2 publications, 0.06%
|
|
Utah Valley University
2 publications, 0.06%
|
|
New Economic School
1 publication, 0.03%
|
|
Bilkent University
1 publication, 0.03%
|
|
Hadassah Medical Center
1 publication, 0.03%
|
|
Tampere University
1 publication, 0.03%
|
|
Linköping University
1 publication, 0.03%
|
|
University of Geneva
1 publication, 0.03%
|
|
Australian National University
1 publication, 0.03%
|
|
University of Bologna
1 publication, 0.03%
|
|
East China University of Political Science and Law
1 publication, 0.03%
|
|
Queen Mary University of London
1 publication, 0.03%
|
|
University of Oxford
1 publication, 0.03%
|
|
Liverpool John Moores University
1 publication, 0.03%
|
|
University of Copenhagen
1 publication, 0.03%
|
|
University of Bergen
1 publication, 0.03%
|
|
University of Southern Denmark
1 publication, 0.03%
|
|
Maastricht University
1 publication, 0.03%
|
|
University of Antwerp
1 publication, 0.03%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
|
Publishing organizations in 5 years
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
|
|
Harvard University
18 publications, 7.03%
|
|
University of Michigan
18 publications, 7.03%
|
|
Cornell University
13 publications, 5.08%
|
|
Boston University
13 publications, 5.08%
|
|
University of Minnesota
12 publications, 4.69%
|
|
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
12 publications, 4.69%
|
|
Brown University
11 publications, 4.3%
|
|
Columbia University
10 publications, 3.91%
|
|
University of Chicago
10 publications, 3.91%
|
|
Yale University
9 publications, 3.52%
|
|
Georgetown University
7 publications, 2.73%
|
|
Johns Hopkins University
6 publications, 2.34%
|
|
Vanderbilt University
6 publications, 2.34%
|
|
University of Pennsylvania
6 publications, 2.34%
|
|
Texas A&M University
6 publications, 2.34%
|
|
Pennsylvania State University
5 publications, 1.95%
|
|
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
5 publications, 1.95%
|
|
Case Western Reserve University
5 publications, 1.95%
|
|
University of California, San Francisco
5 publications, 1.95%
|
|
University of California, Irvine
5 publications, 1.95%
|
|
Wesleyan University
5 publications, 1.95%
|
|
University of Edinburgh
4 publications, 1.56%
|
|
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
4 publications, 1.56%
|
|
American University
4 publications, 1.56%
|
|
Brigham and Women's Hospital
4 publications, 1.56%
|
|
University of California, Los Angeles
4 publications, 1.56%
|
|
University of Wisconsin–Madison
4 publications, 1.56%
|
|
University of Utah
4 publications, 1.56%
|
|
Stanford University
3 publications, 1.17%
|
|
George Washington University
3 publications, 1.17%
|
|
University of California, San Diego
3 publications, 1.17%
|
|
Marquette University
3 publications, 1.17%
|
|
McGill University
3 publications, 1.17%
|
|
University of Cambridge
2 publications, 0.78%
|
|
Aarhus University
2 publications, 0.78%
|
|
City, University of London
2 publications, 0.78%
|
|
University of Southern California
2 publications, 0.78%
|
|
University of Glasgow
2 publications, 0.78%
|
|
European University Institute
2 publications, 0.78%
|
|
Princeton University
2 publications, 0.78%
|
|
Duke University
2 publications, 0.78%
|
|
Syracuse University
2 publications, 0.78%
|
|
New York University
2 publications, 0.78%
|
|
Ohio State University
2 publications, 0.78%
|
|
University of California, Davis
2 publications, 0.78%
|
|
Northeastern University
2 publications, 0.78%
|
|
Ohio University
2 publications, 0.78%
|
|
Dartmouth College
2 publications, 0.78%
|
|
University of Amsterdam
2 publications, 0.78%
|
|
University of Sheffield
2 publications, 0.78%
|
|
Louisiana State University
2 publications, 0.78%
|
|
Indiana University Bloomington
2 publications, 0.78%
|
|
Utah Valley University
2 publications, 0.78%
|
|
Bilkent University
1 publication, 0.39%
|
|
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
1 publication, 0.39%
|
|
University of Geneva
1 publication, 0.39%
|
|
University of Bologna
1 publication, 0.39%
|
|
East China University of Political Science and Law
1 publication, 0.39%
|
|
Queen Mary University of London
1 publication, 0.39%
|
|
University of Oxford
1 publication, 0.39%
|
|
Liverpool John Moores University
1 publication, 0.39%
|
|
University of Copenhagen
1 publication, 0.39%
|
|
University of Antwerp
1 publication, 0.39%
|
|
Duke Kunshan University
1 publication, 0.39%
|
|
Edinburgh Napier University
1 publication, 0.39%
|
|
Manchester Metropolitan University
1 publication, 0.39%
|
|
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
1 publication, 0.39%
|
|
National University of Singapore
1 publication, 0.39%
|
|
National Taiwan University
1 publication, 0.39%
|
|
Michigan State University
1 publication, 0.39%
|
|
National Taipei University of Technology
1 publication, 0.39%
|
|
University of Birmingham
1 publication, 0.39%
|
|
University of Strathclyde
1 publication, 0.39%
|
|
University of Otago
1 publication, 0.39%
|
|
University of Queensland
1 publication, 0.39%
|
|
University of Western Australia
1 publication, 0.39%
|
|
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University Jakarta
1 publication, 0.39%
|
|
Dalhousie University
1 publication, 0.39%
|
|
Yonsei University
1 publication, 0.39%
|
|
Arizona State University
1 publication, 0.39%
|
|
Northwestern University
1 publication, 0.39%
|
|
University of California, Berkeley
1 publication, 0.39%
|
|
University of Washington
1 publication, 0.39%
|
|
University of Arizona
1 publication, 0.39%
|
|
University at Buffalo, State University of New York
1 publication, 0.39%
|
|
University of California, Santa Cruz
1 publication, 0.39%
|
|
University of California, Merced
1 publication, 0.39%
|
|
Newcastle University
1 publication, 0.39%
|
|
University of Texas at Austin
1 publication, 0.39%
|
|
University of Central Florida
1 publication, 0.39%
|
|
Queen's University Belfast
1 publication, 0.39%
|
|
Georgia State University
1 publication, 0.39%
|
|
Vanderbilt University Medical Center
1 publication, 0.39%
|
|
Austral University of Chile
1 publication, 0.39%
|
|
Mzumbe University
1 publication, 0.39%
|
|
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
1 publication, 0.39%
|
|
Oakland University
1 publication, 0.39%
|
|
Tulane University
1 publication, 0.39%
|
|
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center
1 publication, 0.39%
|
|
Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg
1 publication, 0.39%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
|
Publishing countries
100
200
300
400
500
600
|
|
USA
|
USA, 515, 14.65%
USA
515 publications, 14.65%
|
United Kingdom
|
United Kingdom, 31, 0.88%
United Kingdom
31 publications, 0.88%
|
Italy
|
Italy, 20, 0.57%
Italy
20 publications, 0.57%
|
Canada
|
Canada, 19, 0.54%
Canada
19 publications, 0.54%
|
Germany
|
Germany, 9, 0.26%
Germany
9 publications, 0.26%
|
Netherlands
|
Netherlands, 8, 0.23%
Netherlands
8 publications, 0.23%
|
France
|
France, 5, 0.14%
France
5 publications, 0.14%
|
China
|
China, 4, 0.11%
China
4 publications, 0.11%
|
Denmark
|
Denmark, 4, 0.11%
Denmark
4 publications, 0.11%
|
Republic of Korea
|
Republic of Korea, 4, 0.11%
Republic of Korea
4 publications, 0.11%
|
Austria
|
Austria, 3, 0.09%
Austria
3 publications, 0.09%
|
Israel
|
Israel, 3, 0.09%
Israel
3 publications, 0.09%
|
Australia
|
Australia, 2, 0.06%
Australia
2 publications, 0.06%
|
Poland
|
Poland, 2, 0.06%
Poland
2 publications, 0.06%
|
Russia
|
Russia, 1, 0.03%
Russia
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Portugal
|
Portugal, 1, 0.03%
Portugal
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Belgium
|
Belgium, 1, 0.03%
Belgium
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Brazil
|
Brazil, 1, 0.03%
Brazil
1 publication, 0.03%
|
India
|
India, 1, 0.03%
India
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Indonesia
|
Indonesia, 1, 0.03%
Indonesia
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Iraq
|
Iraq, 1, 0.03%
Iraq
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Mexico
|
Mexico, 1, 0.03%
Mexico
1 publication, 0.03%
|
New Zealand
|
New Zealand, 1, 0.03%
New Zealand
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Norway
|
Norway, 1, 0.03%
Norway
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Singapore
|
Singapore, 1, 0.03%
Singapore
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Slovenia
|
Slovenia, 1, 0.03%
Slovenia
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Tanzania
|
Tanzania, 1, 0.03%
Tanzania
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Turkey
|
Turkey, 1, 0.03%
Turkey
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Finland
|
Finland, 1, 0.03%
Finland
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Croatia
|
Croatia, 1, 0.03%
Croatia
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Montenegro
|
Montenegro, 1, 0.03%
Montenegro
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Chile
|
Chile, 1, 0.03%
Chile
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Switzerland
|
Switzerland, 1, 0.03%
Switzerland
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Sweden
|
Sweden, 1, 0.03%
Sweden
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Show all (4 more) | |
100
200
300
400
500
600
|
Publishing countries in 5 years
50
100
150
200
250
|
|
USA
|
USA, 203, 79.3%
USA
203 publications, 79.3%
|
United Kingdom
|
United Kingdom, 20, 7.81%
United Kingdom
20 publications, 7.81%
|
Canada
|
Canada, 8, 3.13%
Canada
8 publications, 3.13%
|
Italy
|
Italy, 6, 2.34%
Italy
6 publications, 2.34%
|
Germany
|
Germany, 4, 1.56%
Germany
4 publications, 1.56%
|
China
|
China, 4, 1.56%
China
4 publications, 1.56%
|
Denmark
|
Denmark, 3, 1.17%
Denmark
3 publications, 1.17%
|
Republic of Korea
|
Republic of Korea, 3, 1.17%
Republic of Korea
3 publications, 1.17%
|
France
|
France, 2, 0.78%
France
2 publications, 0.78%
|
Netherlands
|
Netherlands, 2, 0.78%
Netherlands
2 publications, 0.78%
|
Australia
|
Australia, 1, 0.39%
Australia
1 publication, 0.39%
|
Belgium
|
Belgium, 1, 0.39%
Belgium
1 publication, 0.39%
|
Israel
|
Israel, 1, 0.39%
Israel
1 publication, 0.39%
|
India
|
India, 1, 0.39%
India
1 publication, 0.39%
|
Indonesia
|
Indonesia, 1, 0.39%
Indonesia
1 publication, 0.39%
|
New Zealand
|
New Zealand, 1, 0.39%
New Zealand
1 publication, 0.39%
|
Poland
|
Poland, 1, 0.39%
Poland
1 publication, 0.39%
|
Singapore
|
Singapore, 1, 0.39%
Singapore
1 publication, 0.39%
|
Slovenia
|
Slovenia, 1, 0.39%
Slovenia
1 publication, 0.39%
|
Tanzania
|
Tanzania, 1, 0.39%
Tanzania
1 publication, 0.39%
|
Turkey
|
Turkey, 1, 0.39%
Turkey
1 publication, 0.39%
|
Croatia
|
Croatia, 1, 0.39%
Croatia
1 publication, 0.39%
|
Chile
|
Chile, 1, 0.39%
Chile
1 publication, 0.39%
|
Switzerland
|
Switzerland, 1, 0.39%
Switzerland
1 publication, 0.39%
|
50
100
150
200
250
|
1 profile journal article
Anat Prof.
98 publications,
1 203 citations
h-index: 20