Journal of Global Information Technology Management
Are you a researcher?
Create a profile to get free access to personal recommendations for colleagues and new articles.
SCImago
Q2
WOS
Q1
Impact factor
3
SJR
0.499
CiteScore
4.1
Categories
E-learning
Information Systems
Information Systems and Management
Areas
Computer Science
Decision Sciences
Years of issue
1998-2025
journal names
Journal of Global Information Technology Management
J GLOB INF TECH MAN
Top-3 citing journals

Journal of Global Information Technology Management
(644 citations)

SSRN Electronic Journal
(108 citations)

Information Technology for Development
(100 citations)
Top-3 organizations

Texas A&M University – San Antonio
(31 publications)

University of North Carolina at Greensboro
(23 publications)

West Virginia University
(13 publications)

Texas A&M University – San Antonio
(10 publications)

University of North Carolina at Greensboro
(10 publications)

West Virginia University
(5 publications)
Most cited in 5 years
Found
Publications found: 550
Q1

Ending the organ trade: an ethical assessment of regulatory possibilities
Albertsen A.
Abstract
While the trade of human organs are illegal and widely condemned, a black market flourishes. Estimates indicate that 10% of kidney transplants from living donors involve illegal payments to the kidney seller. This paper presents a typology for approaches aimed at curtailing the black market in human organs. The policies are evaluated from two perspectives: their ethical permissibility and their expected efficiency in ending and minimizing the trade in human organs. To end or minimize organ trading, we must reduce the organ shortage in order to reduce demand for organs, alleviate poverty to reduce the supply of organs, and disincentivize brokers and medical facilitators through a concerted effort to reduce the profit rate of the international organ trade.
Q1

Severe cognitive disability, medically complex children and long-term ventilation
Turnham H., Wilkinson D.
Abstract
Children with complex medical conditions including those with severe intellectual disability are living longer. For some, support with medical technology such as Long-Term Ventilation can prolong their lives further. Such technological supports can have significant implications for the child and her family and consume considerable resources though they can also offer real benefits. Sometimes clinicians question whether children with very severe cognitive impairments should have their life prolonged by technology, though they would be prepared to provide the same treatment in equivalent cases without cognitive disability. We describe and analyse four ways in which this view might be justified. Although it could be claimed that children with severe cognitive disability have lives that are not worth living, in most cases this view can and should be rejected. However, the burdens of life-prolonging technology may outweigh the benefits of such treatment either in the present or in the future. Consequently it might not be in their interests to provide such technology, or to ensure that it is provided as part of a time-limited trial. We also consider circumstances where medical technology could offer modest benefits to an individual, but resources are scarce. In the face of resource imitation, treatment may be prioritised to children who stand to benefit the most. This may in some circumstances, justify selectively withholding treatment from some medically complex children.
Q1

Chasing ‘vulnerability’ across six decades of the Declaration of Helsinki
Lindholm O., Karjalainen S., Launis V.
Abstract
The year 2024 marked the 60th anniversary of the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki (DoH). Coincidentally, the WMA published the 8th revision of this landmark document guiding medical research involving human subjects. One of the key changes in this latest revision concerns the notion of vulnerability, which has always been central to the DoH’s ethos. The term ‘vulnerability’ was explicitly introduced in the 5th revision, published in 2000, which lists five vulnerable groups. Subsequent revisions have significantly altered how vulnerability is portrayed and understood within the document. This article traces the conceptualisation of vulnerability across the various versions of the DoH, culminating in its recently published 8th revision. We explore the underlying principles of each revision and examine how these principles have both influenced and been influenced by broader ethical discourses. Lastly, we address some of the challenges that future revisions must meet to ensure that the document remains internally coherent and practically applicable for researchers and research ethics committees alike.
Q1

The role of the ethics expert in Spanish legislation on euthanasia and mental health
Ramos-Pozón S.
Abstract
This article examines the assessment of mental capacity in the context of euthanasia, particularly when requested by patients with mental illnesses. It proposes a holistic alternative approach to the traditional functional model, arguing that the latter is insufficient to capture the complexity of these patients’ decisions. Using approaches based on narrative, hermeneutic, and dialogical ethics, it offers an evaluation that considers the patient’s life story, values, and context. Shared decision-making and empathy are identified as fundamental components to ensure informed and consensual decisions, promoting an environment of respect and mutual understanding. The article reviews Spanish legislation on euthanasia, highlighting the need to include medical ethics experts in the Guarantee and Evaluation Commissions. These experts provide a comprehensive ethical perspective essential for addressing the ethical complexities in euthanasia requests and ensuring fair decisions that reflect the patient’s true will. It recommends reviewing and expanding current protocols, as well as including continuous ethics training to improve medical practice in this context. The conclusions suggest that an assessment of mental capacity based on ethical principles and an integrated narrative can significantly improve medical practice and decision-making in euthanasia, especially for these patients. Furthermore, the inclusion of ethics experts in the commissions can provide a more humane and just perspective, ensuring that decisions respect the patient’s dignity and autonomy.
Q1

Perceptions of members of ethics committees of medical institutions in India on controlled human infection studies (CHIS) following a sensitization workshop: a systematic survey
Lakshminarayanan S., Muthu Kumaran P., Jayaram S., Mathaiyan J., Rajappa M.
Controlled Human Infection Studies (CHIS) involving the deliberate exposure of healthy individuals to infectious agents, are emerging as a valuable tool for medical research. This systematic survey explores the perceptions of ethics committee members from various Indian medical research institutions after participating in a sensitization workshop on CHIS. This cross-sectional study was conducted on the workshop participants through an online survey. The workshop was held in a hybrid mode and around 60 participants from four tertiary care institutions and research institutes had participated. A structured questionnaire was used to assess their evolving perspectives, challenges, and recommendations related to CHIS and the effectiveness of the workshop. Both Likert scale and open-ended items were included in the survey. Responses are presented as percentage and views supported through the quotes from responses. Around 43 participants responded to the survey (72%). Participants acknowledged the potential benefits of CHIS but were concerned about the psychological harm and other risks. Challenges were identified in conducting and reviewing CHIS, including regulatory approvals, risk assessment, and robust informed consent. The need for development of regulatory guidelines, specialized training, risk mitigation strategies, community engagement, and compensation mechanisms were highlighted. The sensitization workshop was considered valuable in enhancing participants' understanding of CHIS, although participants expressed a need for continued training and experience to effectively review such studies. With the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) releasing a policy statement on ethical conduct of CHIS in India, this study provides a foundation for future capacity-building initiatives among ethics committee members. The findings emphasize the significance of ongoing dialogue to standardize the ethical review process for CHIS, thus facilitating their acceptance and realization in India's medical research landscape.
Q1

Lessons from COVID-19 patient visitation restrictions: six considerations to help develop ethical patient visitor policies
Høeg T.B., Knudsen B., Prasad V.
Abstract
Patient visitor restrictions were implemented in unprecedented ways during the COVID-19 pandemic and included bans on any visitors to dying patients and bans separating mothers from infants. These were implemented without high quality evidence they would be beneficial and the harms to patients, families and medical personnel were often immediately clear. Evidence has also accumulated finding strict visitor restrictions were accompanied by long-term individual and societal consequences. We highlight numerous examples of restrictions that were enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic, including some that continue to be in place today. We outline six specific concerns about the nature and effects of the visitor restrictions seen during the COVID-19 pandemic. These considerations may help provide both an ethical and science-based framework, through which healthcare workers, families and government entities can work towards safeguarding patient and family rights and well-being.
Q1

Thoracoabdominal normothermic regional perfusion: Is it ethical?
Turan C.
Abstract
Thoracoabdominal normothermic regional perfusion (TA-NRP), a new method of controlled donation after circulatory death, seems to provide more and better organs for patients on organ transplant waiting lists compared to standard controlled donation after circulatory death. Despite its benefits, the ethical permissibility of TA-NRP is currently a highly debated issue. The recent statement published by the American College of Physicians (ACP) highlights the reasons for these debates. Critics’ main concern is that TA-NRP violates the Dead Donor Rule. This paper presents an ethical analysis of the objections raised by the ACP against TA-NRP and argues that TA-NRP is not only morally permissible but also morally required where it is financially and technically feasible. To support this conclusion, the concepts of ‘resuscitation,’ ‘intention,’ ‘irreversibility,’ ‘permanence,’ ‘impossibility,’ and ‘respect’ in the context of TA-NRP are explored. Additionally, the ethical permissibility of this procedure is evaluated through the lenses of Utilitarianism, Kantianism, the core principles of bioethics, and the Doctrine of Double Effect. This ethical analysis demonstrates why the ACP’s objection lacks a solid moral foundation and conflates moral and legal considerations. This paper also argues that extra measures are needed to ensure the moral permissibility of TA-NRP, emphasizing the importance of informed consent, additional brain blood flow and activity monitoring, and a contingency plan to abort the organ procurement process if a sign of morally relevant brain activity is detected.
Q1

Correction to: Health beyond biology: the extended health hypothesis and technology
Baretić M., de Bruijn D.
Q1
Monash bioethics review
,
2024
,
citations by CoLab: 0

Q1

Alterations in care for children with special healthcare needs during the early COVID-19 pandemic: ethical and policy considerations
Jones J., Lignou S., Unguru Y., Sheehan M., Dunn M., Seltzer R.R.
Healthcare delivery and access, both in the United States and globally, were negatively affected during the entirety of the COVID-19 pandemic. This was particularly true during the first year when countries grappled with high rates of illness and implemented non-pharmaceutical interventions such as stay-at-home orders. Among children with special healthcare needs, research from the United Kingdom (U.K.) has shown that the pandemic response uniquely impacted various aspects of their care, including decreased access to care, delays in diagnosis, and poorer chronic disease control. In response to these findings, and to begin to comprehend whether the concerning findings from the nationalized system of healthcare in the U.K. extend to the highly dissimilar United States (U.S.) healthcare context, we reviewed the literature on alterations in access to and delivery of care during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic for children with special healthcare needs in the U.S. We then utilize these findings to consider the ethical and policy considerations of alterations in healthcare provision during pandemics and crisis events in the U.K. and U.S. and make recommendations regarding how the needs of CSHCN should be considered during future responses.
Q1

Stewardship and social justice: implications of using the precautionary principle to justify burdensome antimicrobial stewardship measures
Johnson T.
Abstract
Antimicrobial resistance has been termed a ‘silent pandemic’, a ‘hidden killer.’ This language might indicate a threat of significant future harm to humans, animals, and the environment from resistant microbes. If that harm is uncertain but serious, the precautionary principle might apply to the issue, and might require taking ‘precautionary measures’ to avert the threat of antimicrobial resistance, including stewardship interventions like antibiotic prescription caps, bans on certain uses in farming sectors, and eliminating over-the-counter uses of antibiotics. The precautionary principle is a useful tool in ethical analyses of antimicrobial stewardship measures, but as I argue in this article, it ought not be used as a standalone tool. The principle considers the magnitude of harms to be averted and those arising from precautionary measures, but—importantly—it does not consider the distribution of those harms. That may raise issues of social justice if the harms of stewardship measures befall already disadvantaged populations. To avoid this blind spot in ethical analysis using the precautionary principle, it ought never be used alone, but rather always alongside justice-considering ethical concepts such as reciprocity, benefit-sharing, or a just transition.
Q1

The value of lives in New Zealand
Lally M.
There is currently a pronounced lack of uniformity in the values placed on a life or a QALY by different New Zealand government entities taking actions designed to save lives or QALYs. With some limited exceptions, equity suggests that all QALYs be equally valued, and therefore likewise for all lives with the same residual life expectancy and quality of life. Prima facie, this is attainable by adopting the best (and only credible) New Zealand estimate of the value of life (the NZTA’s $12.5 m value of the life of a median age person in good health), and using that or its QALY equivalent as a cutoff figure to determine interventions throughout the public sector. This provides opportunities for large welfare gains, from curtailing existing interventions that currently use much larger cutoff values (such as earthquake strengthening regulations) and expanding interventions that currently use much smaller cutoff values (such as public health spending). However, the NZTA’s figure is only applicable to small increases in lives saved, and must decline as the number of additional lives saved increases. This relationship should be estimated.
Q1

How clinical ethics discussions can be a model for accommodating and incorporating plural values in paediatric and adult healthcare settings
Delany C.
The following text is the de-identified and edited transcript of an invited presentation by Professor Clare Delany on the topic of ‘How clinical ethics discussions can be a model for accommodating and incorporating plural values in paediatric and adult healthcare settings.’ Professor Delany’s presentation formed part of the Conference on Accommodating Plural Values in Healthcare and Healthcare Policy, which was held in Melbourne, Australia, on Monday, October 30, 2023. This conference was a key output of the Australian Research Council Discovery Project grant DP190101597, ‘Religion, pluralism, and healthcare practice: A philosophical assessment’. Professor Delany’s presentation was introduced by Doctor Lauren Notini, Research Fellow and Lecturer at Monash Bioethics Centre, Monash University.
Q1

Perspectives on cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the frail population: a scoping review
Armour D., Boyiazis D., Delardes B.
Frail and elderly persons approaching end of life who suffer cardiac arrest are often subject to rigorous, undignified, and inappropriate resuscitation attempts despite poor outcomes. This scoping review aims to investigate how people feel about the appropriateness of CPR in this population. This review was guided by the PRISMA-ScR methodological framework. A search strategy was developed for four online databases (MEDLINE, EMCARE, PSYCHINFO, CINAHL). Two reviewers were utilised for title/abstract screening, full text review and data extraction. Full text, peer reviewed studies were eligible for inclusion which discussed perspectives in the frail and/or elderly population with a focus on cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The database search yielded 3693 references (MEDLINE n = 1417, EMCARE n = 1505, PSYCHINFO n = 13, CINAHL n = 758). Following removal of duplicates (n = 953), title and abstract screening was performed on 2740 papers. A total of 2634 articles did not meet the inclusion criteria. Twenty-five studies were included in the scoping review and analysed for data extraction. Five themes emerged: (i) Preferences towards CPR, (ii) Preferences against CPR, (iii) Poor knowledge of CPR/Estimated survival rates, (iv) Do Not Resuscitate Orders, and (v) Decisional authority. This scoping review maps and describes the common perspectives shared by CPR stakeholders in the frail/elderly population. Findings revealed CPR decisions are often made based on incorrect knowledge, DNAR orders are frequently underused, CPR decisional authority remains vague and healthcare professionals have mixed views on the appropriateness of CPR in this population.
Q1

All you need is [somebody’s] love “third-party reproduction” and the existential density of biological affinity
Madureira D.M.
AbstractWhat is the true significance of biological kinship? During the last decades, it seemed to be uncontroversial that abandoned and even adopted people feel the negative impact of biological parents’ absence throughout life in several ways (Miller et al. 2000; Keyes, Margaret A., Anu Sharma, Irene J Elkins, and William G. Iacono, Matt McGue. 2008. The Mental Health of US Adolescents Adopted in Infancy. Archive Pediatric Adolescense Medicine 162(5): 419–425.). However, in the case of people conceived via “third-party reproduction”, especially in sperm donation, the disruption of the kinship network derived from natural bonds tends to be presented as something irrelevant. This article disputes that assumption, explores its relationship with a deconstructivist vision that presents kinship as a purely social construct and defends the personal and existential value of a person’s biological bonds with her parents. While analysing the anthropological shift inherent to the way some political discourses present the nuclear family and heterologous biotechnology, it proposes renewed philosophical attention on the significance of filiation and human affinity. This article argues for the density of genealogical ties and defends that the consecration of an individual “right to a child”, namely (but not exclusively) through the normalised access to sperm banks, is incompatible with the rights of the child, since it deprives people from knowing not only who but also how is their father.
Q1

A queer feminist posthuman framework for bioethics: on vulnerability, antimicrobial resistance, and justice
Sudenkaarne T.
AbstractIn this paper, I discuss the bioethical principle of justice and the bioethical key concept of vulnerability, in a queer feminist posthuman framework. I situate these contemplations, philosophical by nature, in the context of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), one the most vicious moral problems of our time. Further, I discuss how gender and sexual variance, vulnerability and justice manifest in AMR. I conclude by considering my queer feminist posthuman framework for vulnerability and justice in relation to the notion of antibiotic vulnerabilities, suggesting a lacuna for further AMR research.
Top-100
Citing journals
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
|
|
Journal of Global Information Technology Management
644 citations, 10.83%
|
|
SSRN Electronic Journal
108 citations, 1.82%
|
|
Information Technology for Development
100 citations, 1.68%
|
|
Sustainability
72 citations, 1.21%
|
|
Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries
60 citations, 1.01%
|
|
Computers in Human Behavior
60 citations, 1.01%
|
|
Journal of Enterprise Information Management
56 citations, 0.94%
|
|
Information Technology and People
52 citations, 0.87%
|
|
Journal of Global Information Management
51 citations, 0.86%
|
|
International Journal of Information Management
46 citations, 0.77%
|
|
Information and Management
44 citations, 0.74%
|
|
Telecommunications Policy
41 citations, 0.69%
|
|
IEEE Access
38 citations, 0.64%
|
|
Education and Information Technologies
35 citations, 0.59%
|
|
Information Systems Frontiers
34 citations, 0.57%
|
|
Information Systems Management
30 citations, 0.5%
|
|
Lecture Notes in Computer Science
27 citations, 0.45%
|
|
Information Development
27 citations, 0.45%
|
|
Internet Research
27 citations, 0.45%
|
|
Journal of Knowledge Management
27 citations, 0.45%
|
|
Journal of the Knowledge Economy
26 citations, 0.44%
|
|
Journal of Business Research
25 citations, 0.42%
|
|
Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems
22 citations, 0.37%
|
|
Government Information Quarterly
21 citations, 0.35%
|
|
Handbook of Research on Global Business Opportunities
21 citations, 0.35%
|
|
Journal of Information Technology
20 citations, 0.34%
|
|
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
19 citations, 0.32%
|
|
Journal of Strategic Information Systems
19 citations, 0.32%
|
|
Frontiers in Psychology
19 citations, 0.32%
|
|
Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management
19 citations, 0.32%
|
|
European Journal of Information Systems
18 citations, 0.3%
|
|
Effective Web Presence Solutions for Small Businesses
18 citations, 0.3%
|
|
Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing
17 citations, 0.29%
|
|
Journal of Electronic Commerce in Organizations
17 citations, 0.29%
|
|
SAGE Open
17 citations, 0.29%
|
|
Industrial Management and Data Systems
17 citations, 0.29%
|
|
Handbook of Research on Teaching Methods in Language Translation and Interpretation
17 citations, 0.29%
|
|
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management
16 citations, 0.27%
|
|
Behaviour and Information Technology
16 citations, 0.27%
|
|
Knowledge Management Research and Practice
16 citations, 0.27%
|
|
Business Process Management Journal
16 citations, 0.27%
|
|
Data Base for Advances in Information Systems
15 citations, 0.25%
|
|
Expert Systems with Applications
15 citations, 0.25%
|
|
Journal of Systems and Information Technology
15 citations, 0.25%
|
|
Journal of Computer Information Systems
14 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Benchmarking
14 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research
14 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Journal of Information and Knowledge Management
13 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Journal of Organizational and End User Computing
13 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Outsourcing Management for Supply Chain Operations and Logistics Service
13 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Kybernetes
12 citations, 0.2%
|
|
International Journal of Production Research
12 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Journal of Asia Business Studies
12 citations, 0.2%
|
|
IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology
12 citations, 0.2%
|
|
International Journal of Customer Relationship Marketing and Management
12 citations, 0.2%
|
|
PLoS ONE
12 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Contemporary Approaches to Activity Theory
12 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Electronic Markets
11 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Electronic Commerce Research
11 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Journal of Internet Commerce
11 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Cogent Business and Management
11 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Decision Support Systems
11 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics
11 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity
11 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing
11 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management
10 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Information Systems Journal
10 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Industrial Marketing Management
10 citations, 0.17%
|
|
International Journal of e-Business Research
10 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Technological Forecasting and Social Change
10 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Journal of Management Information Systems
10 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Online Information Review
10 citations, 0.17%
|
|
African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development
9 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Interactive Learning Environments
9 citations, 0.15%
|
|
International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction
9 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Education Sciences
9 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Frontiers in Education
9 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Frontiers in Public Health
9 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Advances in E-Business Research Series
9 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Management Decision
9 citations, 0.15%
|
|
International Journal of Managing Projects in Business
9 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences
9 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Advances in Electronic Government, Digital Divide, and Regional Development
9 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development
8 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Information and Computer Security
8 citations, 0.13%
|
|
VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems
8 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research
8 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce
8 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Telematics and Informatics
8 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications
8 citations, 0.13%
|
|
European Journal of Innovation Management
8 citations, 0.13%
|
|
International Journal of Consumer Studies
8 citations, 0.13%
|
|
International Journal of Human Capital and Information Technology Professionals
8 citations, 0.13%
|
|
International Journal of E-Adoption
8 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Advances in Marketing, Customer Relationship Management, and E-Services
8 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Advances in Business Information Systems and Analytics
8 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Advances in Human Resources Management and Organizational Development
8 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Advances in Electronic Commerce
8 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Journal of Islamic Marketing
7 citations, 0.12%
|
|
International Journal of Bank Marketing
7 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
|
Citing publishers
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
|
|
Taylor & Francis
1247 citations, 20.97%
|
|
Emerald
760 citations, 12.78%
|
|
IGI Global
726 citations, 12.21%
|
|
Elsevier
630 citations, 10.59%
|
|
Springer Nature
572 citations, 9.62%
|
|
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
379 citations, 6.37%
|
|
Wiley
229 citations, 3.85%
|
|
MDPI
213 citations, 3.58%
|
|
SAGE
184 citations, 3.09%
|
|
Social Science Electronic Publishing
107 citations, 1.8%
|
|
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
102 citations, 1.72%
|
|
Frontiers Media S.A.
50 citations, 0.84%
|
|
World Scientific
35 citations, 0.59%
|
|
Hindawi Limited
28 citations, 0.47%
|
|
Walter de Gruyter
25 citations, 0.42%
|
|
JMIR Publications
18 citations, 0.3%
|
|
Inderscience Publishers
17 citations, 0.29%
|
|
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
14 citations, 0.24%
|
|
IntechOpen
13 citations, 0.22%
|
|
IOP Publishing
12 citations, 0.2%
|
|
AOSIS
10 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Cambridge University Press
9 citations, 0.15%
|
|
EDP Sciences
9 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS)
9 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Virtus Interpress
9 citations, 0.15%
|
|
CAIRN
9 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Scientific Research Publishing
8 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Trans Tech Publications
7 citations, 0.12%
|
|
AIP Publishing
6 citations, 0.1%
|
|
International Journal of Information and Education Technology
6 citations, 0.1%
|
|
LLC CPC Business Perspectives
6 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Cognizant, LLC
6 citations, 0.1%
|
|
IOS Press
5 citations, 0.08%
|
|
Mary Ann Liebert
5 citations, 0.08%
|
|
Universidad Nacional de Colombia
5 citations, 0.08%
|
|
Escola Brasileira de Administracao Publica da Fundacao Getulio Vargas
5 citations, 0.08%
|
|
IAE School of Management Montpellier University
5 citations, 0.08%
|
|
SciELO
5 citations, 0.08%
|
|
Centre for Evaluation in Education and Science (CEON/CEES)
5 citations, 0.08%
|
|
Consortium Erudit
5 citations, 0.08%
|
|
International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences
5 citations, 0.08%
|
|
South Florida Publishing LLC
5 citations, 0.08%
|
|
Center for Strategic Studies in Business and Finance SSBFNET
5 citations, 0.08%
|
|
Oxford University Press
4 citations, 0.07%
|
|
Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET)
4 citations, 0.07%
|
|
Academic Journals
4 citations, 0.07%
|
|
The Pennsylvania State University Press
4 citations, 0.07%
|
|
American Accounting Association
3 citations, 0.05%
|
|
MIT Press
3 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Vilnius Gediminas Technical University
3 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Vilnius University Press
3 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Bureau of Scientific Publications of the Foundation for Education, Science and Technology
3 citations, 0.05%
|
|
F1000 Research
3 citations, 0.05%
|
|
AMO Publisher
3 citations, 0.05%
|
|
American Marketing Association
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Brill
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Index Copernicus
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
American Physical Society (APS)
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Fundacao Getulio Vargas, Escola de Administracao de Empresas de Sao Paulo
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Society for Personality Research
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Brazilian Administration Review
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Annual Reviews
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Science Alert
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
EJournal Publishing
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
International Association for Digital Transformation and Technological Innovation
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Intellect
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
SAE International
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Universidad Icesi
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Hans Publishers
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Fundacja Upowszechniajaca Wiedze i Nauke Cognitione
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Holy Spirit University of Kaslik
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
International Global Health Society
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
American Chemical Society (ACS)
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
John Benjamins Publishing Company
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Morgan & Claypool Publishers
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Berkeley Electronic Press
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
European Academy of Management and Business Economics
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
American Speech Language Hearing Association
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Editura ASE Bucuresti
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
PeerJ
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
School of Engineering, Auckland University of Technology
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Institut National de Recherche Pedagogique
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
ACCB Publishing
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Johann Ambrosius Barth
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Academic Mind
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Academy of Management
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Tsinghua University Press
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Karadeniz Technical University
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Editura Economica
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Wageningen Academic Publishers
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
|
Publishing organizations
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
|
|
Texas A&M University – San Antonio
31 publications, 4.81%
|
|
University of North Carolina at Greensboro
23 publications, 3.57%
|
|
West Virginia University
13 publications, 2.02%
|
|
Sogang University
12 publications, 1.86%
|
|
Kuwait University
7 publications, 1.09%
|
|
University of Texas at El Paso
7 publications, 1.09%
|
|
Incheon National University
6 publications, 0.93%
|
|
Wayne State University
6 publications, 0.93%
|
|
University of Memphis
5 publications, 0.78%
|
|
Southwestern University of Finance and Economics
4 publications, 0.62%
|
|
City University of Hong Kong
4 publications, 0.62%
|
|
Southern Illinois University Edwardsville
4 publications, 0.62%
|
|
Virginia Commonwealth University
4 publications, 0.62%
|
|
University of Delaware
4 publications, 0.62%
|
|
Old Dominion University
4 publications, 0.62%
|
|
Indian Institute of Management Indore
3 publications, 0.47%
|
|
Multimedia University
3 publications, 0.47%
|
|
University of Naples Federico II
3 publications, 0.47%
|
|
National Sun Yat-sen University
3 publications, 0.47%
|
|
Delft University of Technology
3 publications, 0.47%
|
|
University of Oulu
3 publications, 0.47%
|
|
University of Oxford
3 publications, 0.47%
|
|
Loughborough University
3 publications, 0.47%
|
|
Victoria University of Wellington
3 publications, 0.47%
|
|
University of Cape Town
3 publications, 0.47%
|
|
George Washington University
3 publications, 0.47%
|
|
Seattle University
3 publications, 0.47%
|
|
Morgan State University
3 publications, 0.47%
|
|
Central Michigan University
3 publications, 0.47%
|
|
University of Wisconsin–Whitewater
3 publications, 0.47%
|
|
Kozminski University
3 publications, 0.47%
|
|
Indiana University Bloomington
3 publications, 0.47%
|
|
Shiv Nadar University
2 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode
2 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Indian Institute of Management Sambalpur
2 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Shanghai Jiao Tong University
2 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Harbin Institute of Technology
2 publications, 0.31%
|
|
University of Science, Malaysia
2 publications, 0.31%
|
|
University of Lisbon
2 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Sunway University
2 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics
2 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Northern University of Malaysia
2 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Umeå University
2 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Nankai University
2 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Renmin University of China
2 publications, 0.31%
|
|
University of International Business and Economics
2 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Nanyang Technological University
2 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Brunel University London
2 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Tianjin University
2 publications, 0.31%
|
|
University of Jyväskylä
2 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Åbo Akademi University
2 publications, 0.31%
|
|
National University of Singapore
2 publications, 0.31%
|
|
National Taiwan University of Arts
2 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Shih Chien University
2 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Pennsylvania State University
2 publications, 0.31%
|
|
University of Auckland
2 publications, 0.31%
|
|
University of Canterbury
2 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Macquarie University
2 publications, 0.31%
|
|
University of South Australia
2 publications, 0.31%
|
|
University of South Africa
2 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Covenant University
2 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Washington State University
2 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Korea University
2 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Kyungpook National University
2 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Pusan National University
2 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Auburn University
2 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Clemson University
2 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Gachon University
2 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Northern Illinois University
2 publications, 0.31%
|
|
DePaul University
2 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Georgia State University
2 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Southern Illinois University Carbondale
2 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Oakland University
2 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Clarkson University
2 publications, 0.31%
|
|
University of Wisconsin–Green Bay
2 publications, 0.31%
|
|
University of Sousse
2 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
2 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Toronto Metropolitan University
2 publications, 0.31%
|
|
University of Manitoba
2 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Northern Kentucky University
2 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Louisiana State University
2 publications, 0.31%
|
|
University of Texas at Arlington
2 publications, 0.31%
|
|
University of Alabama in Huntsville
2 publications, 0.31%
|
|
William & Mary
2 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Coventry University
2 publications, 0.31%
|
|
University of Westminster
2 publications, 0.31%
|
|
South Ural State University
1 publication, 0.16%
|
|
ADA university
1 publication, 0.16%
|
|
King Saud University
1 publication, 0.16%
|
|
King Khalid University
1 publication, 0.16%
|
|
Istanbul Technical University
1 publication, 0.16%
|
|
Ankara University
1 publication, 0.16%
|
|
Northern Border University
1 publication, 0.16%
|
|
University of Tehran
1 publication, 0.16%
|
|
Tarbiat Modares University
1 publication, 0.16%
|
|
University of Sharjah
1 publication, 0.16%
|
|
Middle East Technical University
1 publication, 0.16%
|
|
Boğaziçi University
1 publication, 0.16%
|
|
Indian Institute of Science
1 publication, 0.16%
|
|
Shiraz University
1 publication, 0.16%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
|
Publishing organizations in 5 years
2
4
6
8
10
|
|
University of North Carolina at Greensboro
10 publications, 8.93%
|
|
Texas A&M University – San Antonio
10 publications, 8.93%
|
|
West Virginia University
5 publications, 4.46%
|
|
Wayne State University
5 publications, 4.46%
|
|
Incheon National University
4 publications, 3.57%
|
|
Old Dominion University
3 publications, 2.68%
|
|
University of Lisbon
2 publications, 1.79%
|
|
Sunway University
2 publications, 1.79%
|
|
Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics
2 publications, 1.79%
|
|
Nankai University
2 publications, 1.79%
|
|
National Sun Yat-sen University
2 publications, 1.79%
|
|
Renmin University of China
2 publications, 1.79%
|
|
Pusan National University
2 publications, 1.79%
|
|
Gachon University
2 publications, 1.79%
|
|
Morgan State University
2 publications, 1.79%
|
|
Southern Illinois University Edwardsville
2 publications, 1.79%
|
|
Kozminski University
2 publications, 1.79%
|
|
University of Westminster
2 publications, 1.79%
|
|
South Ural State University
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
University of Sharjah
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
Indian Institute of Science
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology of Kashmir
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
National Institute of Technology Warangal
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
Islamic Azad University, Tehran
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
Indian Institute of Management Calcutta
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
Indian Institute of Management Shillong
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
Indian Institute of Management Amritsar
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
Indian Institute of Management Sirmaur
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
University of Sulaymaniyah
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
Vietnam National University, Hanoi
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
Shanghai Jiao Tong University
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
Harbin Institute of Technology
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
Amity University, Noida
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
Xi'an Jiaotong University
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
Kuwait University
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
University of Science, Malaysia
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
Reichman University
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
University Tunku Abdul Rahman
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
University of Malaysia, Sarawak
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
Northern University of Malaysia
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
University of Science and Technology Beijing
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
Xiamen University of Technology
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
Tianjin University of Finance and Economics
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
Wuhan Textile University
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
Jiangsu University
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
Yangzhou University
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
King's College London
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
National Taiwan University of Arts
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
Dongbei University of Finance and Economics
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
National Chung Hsing University
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
Minjiang University
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
University of Ferrara
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
Victoria University of Wellington
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
Macquarie University
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
University of South Australia
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
Murdoch University
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
University of the Witwatersrand
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
University of Pretoria
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
University of South Africa
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
Howard University
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
Durban University of Technology
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
Covenant University
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
Kwara State University
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
Sungkyunkwan University
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
Chung-Ang University
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
Sogang University
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
Harvard University
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
Wenzhou–Kean University
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
Yunnan University of Finance and Economics
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
Yunnan University
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
University of Cape Coast
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
Hellenic Open University
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
Lanzhou University
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
Jiangxi Agricultural University
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
Accra Technical University
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
University of Minnesota Duluth
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
Virginia Commonwealth University
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
University of Wisconsin–Green Bay
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
University of Texas at El Paso
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
University of Sousse
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
University of Ontario Institute of Technology
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
Louisiana State University in Shreveport
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
Appalachian State University
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
Indiana University South Bend
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
Alabama State University
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
William & Mary
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
University of Chittagong
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
International University of Rabat
1 publication, 0.89%
|
|
Show all (63 more) | |
2
4
6
8
10
|
Publishing countries
50
100
150
200
250
|
|
USA
|
USA, 208, 32.25%
USA
208 publications, 32.25%
|
China
|
China, 55, 8.53%
China
55 publications, 8.53%
|
India
|
India, 30, 4.65%
India
30 publications, 4.65%
|
Republic of Korea
|
Republic of Korea, 28, 4.34%
Republic of Korea
28 publications, 4.34%
|
United Kingdom
|
United Kingdom, 21, 3.26%
United Kingdom
21 publications, 3.26%
|
Australia
|
Australia, 15, 2.33%
Australia
15 publications, 2.33%
|
Canada
|
Canada, 11, 1.71%
Canada
11 publications, 1.71%
|
Brazil
|
Brazil, 10, 1.55%
Brazil
10 publications, 1.55%
|
Spain
|
Spain, 9, 1.4%
Spain
9 publications, 1.4%
|
Malaysia
|
Malaysia, 8, 1.24%
Malaysia
8 publications, 1.24%
|
Finland
|
Finland, 8, 1.24%
Finland
8 publications, 1.24%
|
Kuwait
|
Kuwait, 7, 1.09%
Kuwait
7 publications, 1.09%
|
New Zealand
|
New Zealand, 7, 1.09%
New Zealand
7 publications, 1.09%
|
South Africa
|
South Africa, 7, 1.09%
South Africa
7 publications, 1.09%
|
France
|
France, 6, 0.93%
France
6 publications, 0.93%
|
Iran
|
Iran, 6, 0.93%
Iran
6 publications, 0.93%
|
Turkey
|
Turkey, 6, 0.93%
Turkey
6 publications, 0.93%
|
Italy
|
Italy, 4, 0.62%
Italy
4 publications, 0.62%
|
Nigeria
|
Nigeria, 4, 0.62%
Nigeria
4 publications, 0.62%
|
Netherlands
|
Netherlands, 4, 0.62%
Netherlands
4 publications, 0.62%
|
Singapore
|
Singapore, 4, 0.62%
Singapore
4 publications, 0.62%
|
Portugal
|
Portugal, 3, 0.47%
Portugal
3 publications, 0.47%
|
Iraq
|
Iraq, 3, 0.47%
Iraq
3 publications, 0.47%
|
Norway
|
Norway, 3, 0.47%
Norway
3 publications, 0.47%
|
Poland
|
Poland, 3, 0.47%
Poland
3 publications, 0.47%
|
Saudi Arabia
|
Saudi Arabia, 3, 0.47%
Saudi Arabia
3 publications, 0.47%
|
Thailand
|
Thailand, 3, 0.47%
Thailand
3 publications, 0.47%
|
Sweden
|
Sweden, 3, 0.47%
Sweden
3 publications, 0.47%
|
Germany
|
Germany, 2, 0.31%
Germany
2 publications, 0.31%
|
Vietnam
|
Vietnam, 2, 0.31%
Vietnam
2 publications, 0.31%
|
Ghana
|
Ghana, 2, 0.31%
Ghana
2 publications, 0.31%
|
Denmark
|
Denmark, 2, 0.31%
Denmark
2 publications, 0.31%
|
Ireland
|
Ireland, 2, 0.31%
Ireland
2 publications, 0.31%
|
UAE
|
UAE, 2, 0.31%
UAE
2 publications, 0.31%
|
Pakistan
|
Pakistan, 2, 0.31%
Pakistan
2 publications, 0.31%
|
Tanzania
|
Tanzania, 2, 0.31%
Tanzania
2 publications, 0.31%
|
Tunisia
|
Tunisia, 2, 0.31%
Tunisia
2 publications, 0.31%
|
Russia
|
Russia, 1, 0.16%
Russia
1 publication, 0.16%
|
Kazakhstan
|
Kazakhstan, 1, 0.16%
Kazakhstan
1 publication, 0.16%
|
Austria
|
Austria, 1, 0.16%
Austria
1 publication, 0.16%
|
Azerbaijan
|
Azerbaijan, 1, 0.16%
Azerbaijan
1 publication, 0.16%
|
Argentina
|
Argentina, 1, 0.16%
Argentina
1 publication, 0.16%
|
Bangladesh
|
Bangladesh, 1, 0.16%
Bangladesh
1 publication, 0.16%
|
Brunei
|
Brunei, 1, 0.16%
Brunei
1 publication, 0.16%
|
Greece
|
Greece, 1, 0.16%
Greece
1 publication, 0.16%
|
Egypt
|
Egypt, 1, 0.16%
Egypt
1 publication, 0.16%
|
Zimbabwe
|
Zimbabwe, 1, 0.16%
Zimbabwe
1 publication, 0.16%
|
Israel
|
Israel, 1, 0.16%
Israel
1 publication, 0.16%
|
Jordan
|
Jordan, 1, 0.16%
Jordan
1 publication, 0.16%
|
Qatar
|
Qatar, 1, 0.16%
Qatar
1 publication, 0.16%
|
Morocco
|
Morocco, 1, 0.16%
Morocco
1 publication, 0.16%
|
Oman
|
Oman, 1, 0.16%
Oman
1 publication, 0.16%
|
Peru
|
Peru, 1, 0.16%
Peru
1 publication, 0.16%
|
Serbia
|
Serbia, 1, 0.16%
Serbia
1 publication, 0.16%
|
Slovakia
|
Slovakia, 1, 0.16%
Slovakia
1 publication, 0.16%
|
Slovenia
|
Slovenia, 1, 0.16%
Slovenia
1 publication, 0.16%
|
Czech Republic
|
Czech Republic, 1, 0.16%
Czech Republic
1 publication, 0.16%
|
Jamaica
|
Jamaica, 1, 0.16%
Jamaica
1 publication, 0.16%
|
Japan
|
Japan, 1, 0.16%
Japan
1 publication, 0.16%
|
Show all (29 more) | |
50
100
150
200
250
|
Publishing countries in 5 years
10
20
30
40
50
60
|
|
USA
|
USA, 53, 47.32%
USA
53 publications, 47.32%
|
China
|
China, 20, 17.86%
China
20 publications, 17.86%
|
India
|
India, 15, 13.39%
India
15 publications, 13.39%
|
Republic of Korea
|
Republic of Korea, 11, 9.82%
Republic of Korea
11 publications, 9.82%
|
United Kingdom
|
United Kingdom, 5, 4.46%
United Kingdom
5 publications, 4.46%
|
France
|
France, 4, 3.57%
France
4 publications, 3.57%
|
Australia
|
Australia, 4, 3.57%
Australia
4 publications, 3.57%
|
Portugal
|
Portugal, 3, 2.68%
Portugal
3 publications, 2.68%
|
South Africa
|
South Africa, 3, 2.68%
South Africa
3 publications, 2.68%
|
Ghana
|
Ghana, 2, 1.79%
Ghana
2 publications, 1.79%
|
Malaysia
|
Malaysia, 2, 1.79%
Malaysia
2 publications, 1.79%
|
UAE
|
UAE, 2, 1.79%
UAE
2 publications, 1.79%
|
Poland
|
Poland, 2, 1.79%
Poland
2 publications, 1.79%
|
Russia
|
Russia, 1, 0.89%
Russia
1 publication, 0.89%
|
Bangladesh
|
Bangladesh, 1, 0.89%
Bangladesh
1 publication, 0.89%
|
Brazil
|
Brazil, 1, 0.89%
Brazil
1 publication, 0.89%
|
Vietnam
|
Vietnam, 1, 0.89%
Vietnam
1 publication, 0.89%
|
Greece
|
Greece, 1, 0.89%
Greece
1 publication, 0.89%
|
Zimbabwe
|
Zimbabwe, 1, 0.89%
Zimbabwe
1 publication, 0.89%
|
Israel
|
Israel, 1, 0.89%
Israel
1 publication, 0.89%
|
Iraq
|
Iraq, 1, 0.89%
Iraq
1 publication, 0.89%
|
Iran
|
Iran, 1, 0.89%
Iran
1 publication, 0.89%
|
Italy
|
Italy, 1, 0.89%
Italy
1 publication, 0.89%
|
Canada
|
Canada, 1, 0.89%
Canada
1 publication, 0.89%
|
Kuwait
|
Kuwait, 1, 0.89%
Kuwait
1 publication, 0.89%
|
Morocco
|
Morocco, 1, 0.89%
Morocco
1 publication, 0.89%
|
Nigeria
|
Nigeria, 1, 0.89%
Nigeria
1 publication, 0.89%
|
New Zealand
|
New Zealand, 1, 0.89%
New Zealand
1 publication, 0.89%
|
Tunisia
|
Tunisia, 1, 0.89%
Tunisia
1 publication, 0.89%
|
Czech Republic
|
Czech Republic, 1, 0.89%
Czech Republic
1 publication, 0.89%
|
10
20
30
40
50
60
|
1 profile journal article
Turel Ofir

University of Melbourne
232 publications,
8 071 citations
h-index: 46