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
3.4
SJR
1.025
CiteScore
5.2
Categories
Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
Oncology
Areas
Medicine
Years of issue
2011-2025
journal names
Practical Radiation Oncology
PRACT RADIAT ONCOL
Top-3 citing journals

Practical Radiation Oncology
(1380 citations)

International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics
(1345 citations)

Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics
(868 citations)
Top-3 organizations

University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
(171 publications)

University of Michigan
(77 publications)

Harvard University
(76 publications)

University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
(60 publications)

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center
(37 publications)

Stanford University
(34 publications)
Top-3 countries
Most cited in 5 years
Found
Publications found: 2850

Analysis of The Role of Deep Learning Models in Image Classification Applications
Li X.
Image classification is a fundamental task in computer science, underpinning various applications such as object detection, face recognition, and object interaction analysis. The concept holds significant value due to its wide-ranging applications across multiple fields. Traditional methods for image classification, however, have been limited by their slow processing speed, rigidity, and high costs. The integration of deep learning models, particularly Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) and Support Vector Machines (SVMs), has revolutionized this process, enabling the development of automated, fast, and practical systems. These advanced models are now employed in diverse areas, including biomedical science, remote sensing, and business management, thanks to their ability to achieve high accuracy across a broad spectrum of scenarios. Training these models involves the use of well-known datasets like Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR) and Modified National Institute of Standards and Technology (MNIST), which provide the necessary data for optimization and validation. The paper examines the structure, functionality, advantages, and limitations of CNNs and SVMs in the context of image classification, demonstrating that deep learning-driven classification is now a mainstream research focus. This study highlights the transformative impact of these models and provides insights into their future potential.

Comparative Analysis of YOLO Variants Based on Performance Evaluation for Object Detection
Chen A.
This study focuses on analysing and exploring the You Only Look Once (YOLO) algorithm. Specifically, this article analyses the evolution and performance of three versions (YOLOv1, YOLOv5, and YOLOv8) in object detection. The research begins by detailing the fundamental concepts of object detection and the datasets commonly used in this field. It then delves into the specific architectures and experimental outcomes associated with each YOLO version. The analysis reveals that while YOLOv8 introduces advanced features and improvements, earlier versions like YOLOv5 may offer superior stability and performance under certain conditions, particularly in specific tasks such as car detection. The discussion emphasizes the significant impact of factors such as batch size on model performance, suggesting that fine-tuning these parameters can optimize the algorithm for particular applications. The study concludes that the future of YOLO development lies in exploring and refining different variants, particularly those of YOLOv8, to better meet diverse requirements. By focusing on five distinct YOLOv8 variants, the research aims to enhance the adaptability and effectiveness of the YOLO framework across a wide range of object detection challenges, thereby contributing valuable insights into the ongoing advancement of this technology.

Comparison of Fully Convolutional Networks and U-Net for Optic Disc and Optic Cup Segmentation
Jin Z.
Glaucoma, the leading cause of irreversible blindness, must be diagnosed early and thus treated in time. However, it has no noticeable symptoms in its early stages and may not be detected easily. This paper aims to compare two well-known convolutional neural network (CNN) structures, namely Fully Convolutional Networks (FCNs) and U-Net for the segmentation of the optic disc (OD) and optic cup (OC) from retinal fundus images which play an important role in glaucoma diagnosis. The performance of both models is assessed using qualitative parameters such as the Dice coefficient, Jaccard index, and cup-to-disc ratio (CDR) error. In our experiment, the U-Net model yields more accurate segmentation results with 0.9601 average pixel accuracy and 0.9255 dice score for OD segmentation, outperforming the FCNs model with 0.9560 average pixel accuracy and 0.9132 dice score for OD segmentation. However, FCNs have a shorter inference time of 0. 0043 seconds against U-net’s 0. 0062 seconds making FCNs more suitable for real-time applications. The restrictions related to this study include biases from using only one dataset acquired from particular imaging devices, dependency on mask-based cropping techniques, and comparison being restricted to two fundamental architectures. This work presents the contribution of the deep learning models in improving glaucoma screening and therefore helping in avoiding blindness.

Sentiment Analysis of Mobile Phone Reviews Using XGBoost and Word Vectors
Wang Z.
Consumer reviews are an important source of data used to judge and examine consumer sentiment, and data mining for reviews of electronic products is an important way to help improve the design of electronic products. The research is based on the consumer reviews of online cell phone e-commerce, The paper constructs a sentiment dictionary in this field based on the Sentiment Oriented Point Mutual Information (SO-PMI) algorithm, and the sentiment weight of the review word vectors. An extreme Gradient Boosting Tree (XGBoost) is used to integrate word vectors and a Large Language Model (LLM) to construct a sentiment recognition model, and finally, a review sentiment index is derived, which unfolds from multiple dimensions to analyze the sentiment tendency in consumer reviews. The empirical analysis shows that the accuracy, recall, area under the curve (AUC), and other validation indexes of the constructed sentiment recognition model are further improved compared with the LLM model, which has a certain application value. When applying the weighted word vector method, the model has been significantly improved compared with the LLM model, the accuracy is increased by 5%, the accuracy is increased by 10%, and the comprehensive accuracy is increased by 2% after the comprehensive application of the two.

A Hybrid Machine Learning Framework for Soccer Match Outcome Prediction: Incorporating Bivariate Poisson Distribution
Chen Z.A.
The 2022 FIFA World Cup final attracted 1.5 billion viewers, while billions of dollars are wagered on soccer matches every year. The increasing demand for accurate predictions, both for academic research and betting purposes, has driven the development of advanced forecasting models. This study explores the application of mathematical and machine learning models to predict results of soccer matches, with the dual aim of academic advancement and profitable betting. The author utilizes a comprehensive dataset from top European leagues (2014-2022) and employ models including Bivariate Poisson Distribution, Naive Bayes, Neural Networks, Support Vector Machines, Random Forests, and Gradient Boosting. The paper’s feature engineering combines historical match statistics, FIFA ratings, and betting odds. While Random Forests achieved the highest accuracy (56.25%), predicting draws remains challenging. The study highlights the potential for improved prediction systems and suggests future research in advanced draw prediction techniques and profitability analysis, the paper provides research directions for researchers in related fields.

The Applications and Prospects of Large Language Models in Traffic Flow Prediction
Liu Y.
Predicting traffic flow is crucial for the functionality of intelligent transportation systems. It is of critical importance to relieve traffic pressure, reduce accident rates, and alleviate environmental pollution. It is an important part of the construction of modern intelligent road networks. With advancements in deep learning (DL), DL models have made notable strides in prediction. However, due to the complexity and non-transparency of DL models themselves, there are still problems of low accuracy and interpretability in traffic flow prediction (TFP). Leveraging large language models (LLM) helps to improve the negative conditions caused by other DL models in prediction. This paper first briefly summarizes the basic characteristics of LLM and their advantages in TFP; then conducts relevant research and analysis in the order of experimental design steps comparison and results and conclusions comparison; then analyzes and discusses the current problems and challenges faced by LLM; finally, it looks forward to future research directions and development trends, and summarizes this paper.

Hierarchical Learning: A Hybrid of Federated Learning and Personalization Fine-Tuning
Li S., Zhang B.
Hierarchical Federated Learning (FL) presents a novel approach that combines global model training with localized personalization fine-tuning to enhance the predictive accuracy of decentralized machine learning systems. Traditional FL methods, which allow multiple clients to collaboratively train a global model without sharing raw data, are hindered by issues such as non-independent and identically distributed (non-IID) data, communication overhead, and limited generalization across diverse client datasets. This study proposes a hierarchical model that mitigates these challenges by incorporating a global model, trained using the Federated Averaging (FedAvg) algorithm, and applying client-specific fine-tuning to improve local model performance. The experiment conducted on a movie recommendation system demonstrates that this hierarchical approach significantly reduces the global model’s error while offering personalized improvements on client-specific datasets. Results show an average Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) reduction of 0.0460 following local personalization. This hybrid approach not only enhances model accuracy but also preserves data privacy and increases scalability, making it a promising solution for decentralized recommendation systems.

Research and Application of Heart Disease Prediction Model Based on Machine Learning
Bao Y.
As heart disease has become the leading cause of death worldwide, early and accurate prediction is crucial to help doctors make initial judgments about patients and improve their survival rates. This study aims to improve the accuracy and efficiency of heart disease prediction through Machine learning (ML) methods to help medical diagnosis. A heart disease dataset was used in the study, and multiple ML models were used to analyze multiple key health features, and the model performance was verified through a test set. This paper concludes that Logistic regression and random forests perform well in this task and have high practical value. Future research can stack models and optimize data sources to improve the practical performance of the model. This study provides a basic framework for building an intelligent medical auxiliary diagnosis system, which helps to achieve early prevention and timely judgment of heart disease, thereby improving the overall efficiency of medical services.

Advances in Image Generation Technology: Exploring GANs and MirrorGANs
Shi L.
This paper is an in-depth study by delving into the latest in image generation technology, where thesis is focusing on the Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) and MirrorGANs possibilities. Image Generation is the backbone of visual computing, mostly utilized in intelligent designs. It is for this reason that this research aims at unravelling the theoretical basis and consolidated practices of GANs when it conies to generating both high-quality and semantically consistent imagery. The study will investigate the whole of the image generation process, starting from data preprocessing to the use of GANs to generate images from textual descriptions. The work discussed the relevance as well as the limitations of these technologies from the artistic point of view, medical imaging, and virtual reality. Tire article concludes that the paper sketches the data and experiments that show that the realism and richness hi picture quality are accentuated when GANs and MirrorGANs are incorporated. This suggests the scope of image-generation technology to enhance human-machine collaboration and allow for innovating hi smart tech. Further studies will be geared to enhancing these methods and consequently drawing humanity and machines closer, which hi nun will fuel the ongoing progress in this fast-paced sphere.

Effectiveness Evaluation of Random Forest, Naive Bayes, and Support Vector Machine Models for KDDCUP99 Anomaly Detection Based on K-means Clustering
Zhang M.
Security in the World Wide Web has recently seen an enormous upgrade in almost every aspect. Identifying malicious activities hi a network such as network attacks and malicious users plays a significant role hi these upgraded security directions. This research utilizes the KDDCUP99 dataset to incorporate K-means clustering with three classifiers: Random Forest (RF). Naïve Bayes (NB). and Support Vector Machine (SVM) with the goal to boost the accuracy of predicting network intrusions. In tins paper. K-means clustering technique is applied as a preprocessing step to enhance the overall quality of network intrusion detection and maximize the accuracy of the network security measures. The goal is to identify anomalies with high accuracy. Experimental results hidicate that the optimal combination is K-means + RF. which outperformed the others hi precision, recall, and Fl-score. Although K-means + NB demonstrated superior recall for certahi smaller anomalies, it underperformed compared to the RF model. The paper concludes by highlighting the value of ensemble approaches, in particular Random Forest, for tackling anomaly detection and network security issues, particularly hi light of the expanding significance of social networks and the internet.

Time Series Analysis: Application of LSTM model in predicting PM 2.5 concentration in Beijing
Yang R.
Air pollution forecasting for public health and policy-making has a critical importance, this paper employs a Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) model to perform in-depth prediction of PM2.5 concentrations measured at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing, outperforming regular forecasting approaches. In the LSTM model, the research examines a very detailed hourly dataset and beats regular forecasting approaches. A key finding is the model’s ability to effectively generalize from historical data to predict future air quality trends, with its adeptness at handling time-dependent relationships. This research emphasizes the importance of LSTM in air pollution prediction and management in environmental science as it provides an effective means for planning and making decisions on air quality management. This research is of great importance in providing a groundwork for further enhancement of prediction modeling. By offering a more reliable and sophisticated picture of air quality variations, this study addresses the current problem about how urban air pollution control could be improved in the city.

Research on Analyzing the Emotional Polarity of Malicious Swipe Comments on E-commerce Platforms Based on NPL
Ren C.
In the era of rapid advancements in natural language processing (NLP) models, these technologies have immense potential to detect and address societal issues, enhancing the functioning of the digital society. Online shopping platforms rely heavily on user reviews to influence buyer decisions, yet malicious reviews can significantly degrade user experience. This study focuses on analyzing the emotional polarity of malicious brushorder (falsely generated) reviews in e-commerce product comments, utilizing the Jingdong product review dataset. The methodology involves utilizing the Word2Vec model to vectorize the text data, followed by principal component analysis (PCA) for outlier detection to identify potential malicious reviews based on their unique characteristics. The PCA results are further leveraged for dimensionality reduction, simplifying the dataset. Subsequently, the BERT model is employed to perform semantic similarity analysis, allowing for the screening and expansion of the experimental dataset with similar malicious comments. This enriched dataset is then subjected to sentiment polarity analysis, enabling a deeper tinderstanding of the nature and impact of these malicious reviews. By facilitating buyers in making informed decisions based on genuine reviews, this research underscores the practical value of NLP hi addressing real-world challenges in e-commerce.

The Use of Natural Language Processing Model in Literary Style Analysis of Chinese Text
Ye J.
In recent years, research on Natural Language Processing (NLP) has made consistent progress and has become a popular topic. As a promising branch of Machine Learning, NLP focuses on the understanding, generating and analysing of human languages. The applications of NLP include chatbots and language translation. This paper represents a HanLP based NLP model. The model is capable of analysing the literary style of given Chinese text by quantifying the literary style of the text on the basis of five fundamental elements, namely literary grace, sentiments, momentum, climate and lingering charm. This paper presents the input and output data of the research and conducts analyses on these data. Moreover, this paper draws a conclusion on the deviation rate and robustness of the model. It is reckoned that this model initially possesses the function of literary style analysis of Chinese text. The research, per se, along with its data, is capable of being reference for research in NLP and related fields.

Sql injection detection using Naïve Bayes classifier: A probabilistic approach for web application security
Lu Z.
A pervasive security issue in web applications is database injection, enabling attackers to alter SQL queries in order to get unauthorized access to confidential information. Using the Naive Bayes classifier, a probabilistic model specifically developed for text classification tasks, this work introduces a novel method for detecting SQL injection vulnerabilities.The process begins by collecting and organizing a comprehensive dataset, which includes both harmful and non-malicious SQL queries. Feature extraction is later employed to identify patterns and characteristics commonly associated with SQL injection, such as certain SQL clauses and logical operators. This collection of attributes is employed to generate a feature vector that serves as the input for the Naive Bayes classification algorithms. The classifier is trained using a labeled dataset and then learns to distinguish between benign and malicious requests by assessing their computed probabilities. Conventional measures such as accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score are employed to assess the model’s ability in correctly identifying SQL while reducing false positive classifications.The present study demonstrates the potential of Naive Bayes in enhancing online application security by providing a methodical and scalable strategy for identifying SQL injection attacks.

Image Inpainting of Portraits Artwork Design and Implementation
Zhang H.
In modern society, the restoration of artwork has become increasingly important. Generative models can provide reference images for the damaged or blurred core areas of these artworks. This paper simulates artificial damage to classic portrait paintings in the Art Portraits dataset by adding center masks during data preprocessing and then implements the image inpainting task. During the training phase, the Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Model (DDPM) is fine-tuned by progressively adding noise to the center-masked images in the noising stage, followed by denoising in the denoising stage to generate images. The generated images are compared with the original undamaged images through loss calculations to optimize the model. Additionally, a Generative Adversarial Network (GAN), which has shown promising results on other datasets, is used as a baseline for comparison. The damaged images are used as inputs, and the generated images are compared to the ground truth to evaluate the performance of both models. In the testing phase, two widely used metrics in image evaluation, Mean Squared Error (MSE) and Fréchet Inception Distance (FID), are introduced to assess the performance. The fine-tuned DDPM achieves an MSE of 0.2622 and an FID of 16.85, while the GAN scores 0.2835 and 22.78, respectively. Since lower values indicate higher fidelity in reproducing the original image, which is crucial for art restoration, the conclusion drawn from this paper is that the fine-tuned DDPM demonstrates higher accuracy and is more suitable for restoration projects related to Art Portraits.
Top-100
Citing journals
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
|
|
Practical Radiation Oncology
1380 citations, 5.99%
|
|
International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics
1345 citations, 5.84%
|
|
Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics
868 citations, 3.77%
|
|
Radiotherapy and Oncology
804 citations, 3.49%
|
|
Advances in Radiation Oncology
744 citations, 3.23%
|
|
Frontiers in Oncology
666 citations, 2.89%
|
|
Medical Physics
599 citations, 2.6%
|
|
Cancers
532 citations, 2.31%
|
|
Radiation Oncology
521 citations, 2.26%
|
|
Brachytherapy
324 citations, 1.41%
|
|
Clinical Oncology
266 citations, 1.16%
|
|
Cancer radiotherapie : journal de la Societe francaise de radiotherapie oncologique
258 citations, 1.12%
|
|
Clinical and Translational Radiation Oncology
250 citations, 1.09%
|
|
Physica Medica
239 citations, 1.04%
|
|
Seminars in Radiation Oncology
232 citations, 1.01%
|
|
Physics in Medicine and Biology
224 citations, 0.97%
|
|
Strahlentherapie und Onkologie
215 citations, 0.93%
|
|
Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology
209 citations, 0.91%
|
|
Medical Dosimetry
208 citations, 0.9%
|
|
British Journal of Radiology
188 citations, 0.82%
|
|
Cureus
179 citations, 0.78%
|
|
Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology
155 citations, 0.67%
|
|
Acta Oncologica
142 citations, 0.62%
|
|
Technology in Cancer Research and Treatment
111 citations, 0.48%
|
|
BMC Cancer
105 citations, 0.46%
|
|
Journal of Clinical Oncology
105 citations, 0.46%
|
|
Technical Innovations & Patient Support in Radiation Oncology
102 citations, 0.44%
|
|
Journal of Neuro-Oncology
101 citations, 0.44%
|
|
American Journal of Clinical Oncology: Cancer Clinical Trials
98 citations, 0.43%
|
|
Medical radiology
96 citations, 0.42%
|
|
Annals of Surgical Oncology
93 citations, 0.4%
|
|
Annals of palliative medicine
90 citations, 0.39%
|
|
Journal of Radiation Research
88 citations, 0.38%
|
|
Scientific Reports
86 citations, 0.37%
|
|
Biomedical Physics and Engineering Express
82 citations, 0.36%
|
|
Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences
82 citations, 0.36%
|
|
International Journal of Particle Therapy
74 citations, 0.32%
|
|
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice
74 citations, 0.32%
|
|
Journal of Thoracic Disease
73 citations, 0.32%
|
|
Current Oncology
72 citations, 0.31%
|
|
Journal of Thoracic Oncology
72 citations, 0.31%
|
|
Translational Lung Cancer Research
71 citations, 0.31%
|
|
Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences
71 citations, 0.31%
|
|
The Lancet Oncology
70 citations, 0.3%
|
|
Clinical and Translational Oncology
69 citations, 0.3%
|
|
PLoS ONE
69 citations, 0.3%
|
|
Cancer
66 citations, 0.29%
|
|
Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology
65 citations, 0.28%
|
|
Clinical Lung Cancer
64 citations, 0.28%
|
|
Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy
63 citations, 0.27%
|
|
Gynecologic Oncology
61 citations, 0.26%
|
|
World Neurosurgery
59 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Supportive Care in Cancer
58 citations, 0.25%
|
|
International Journal of Gynecological Cancer
57 citations, 0.25%
|
|
Journal of Clinical Medicine
57 citations, 0.25%
|
|
Breast
56 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Clinical Breast Cancer
55 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Lung Cancer
54 citations, 0.23%
|
|
Journal of the American College of Radiology
53 citations, 0.23%
|
|
Oral Oncology
50 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Head and Neck
48 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Breast Journal
48 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Pediatric Blood and Cancer
46 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Journal of Oncology Practice
45 citations, 0.2%
|
|
JAMA Oncology
42 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Physical and Engineering Sciences in Medicine
40 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Cancer journal (Sudbury, Mass.)
39 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology
39 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
38 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Journal of Cancer Education
37 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Radiation Oncology Journal
37 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Current Breast Cancer Reports
36 citations, 0.16%
|
|
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
36 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Diagnostics
36 citations, 0.16%
|
|
JCO Oncology Practice
35 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Journal of Surgical Oncology
34 citations, 0.15%
|
|
JAMA network open
34 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Neurosurgery
34 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Journal of Radiation Oncology
34 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Neuro-Oncology
33 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy
33 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology
32 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Medicine (United States)
32 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology
32 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Surgical Oncology Clinics of North America
31 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Current Treatment Options in Oncology
31 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Chinese Clinical Oncology
31 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Cancer Medicine
31 citations, 0.13%
|
|
JCO clinical cancer informatics
30 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Translational Cancer Research
30 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Thoracic Cancer
30 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Journal of Physics: Conference Series
29 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management
29 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Journal of Neurosurgery
29 citations, 0.13%
|
|
World Journal of Clinical Oncology
29 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Hematology/Oncology Clinics of North America
28 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Journal of Patient Safety
27 citations, 0.12%
|
|
World Journal of Urology
27 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Cancer Treatment Reviews
26 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Japanese Journal of Radiology
26 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
|
Citing publishers
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
|
|
Elsevier
9055 citations, 39.33%
|
|
Springer Nature
3172 citations, 13.78%
|
|
Wiley
2627 citations, 11.41%
|
|
MDPI
1038 citations, 4.51%
|
|
Frontiers Media S.A.
780 citations, 3.39%
|
|
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
652 citations, 2.83%
|
|
AME Publishing Company
542 citations, 2.35%
|
|
Taylor & Francis
439 citations, 1.91%
|
|
IOP Publishing
366 citations, 1.59%
|
|
Oxford University Press
332 citations, 1.44%
|
|
American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
320 citations, 1.39%
|
|
SAGE
294 citations, 1.28%
|
|
British Institute of Radiology
199 citations, 0.86%
|
|
American Medical Association (AMA)
117 citations, 0.51%
|
|
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
107 citations, 0.46%
|
|
BMJ
93 citations, 0.4%
|
|
Cambridge University Press
90 citations, 0.39%
|
|
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
85 citations, 0.37%
|
|
Baishideng Publishing Group
85 citations, 0.37%
|
|
Hindawi Limited
71 citations, 0.31%
|
|
Allen Press
62 citations, 0.27%
|
|
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
62 citations, 0.27%
|
|
Spandidos Publications
60 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group (JNSPG)
51 citations, 0.22%
|
|
S. Karger AG
47 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Korean Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology
46 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
45 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Mary Ann Liebert
42 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Research Square Platform LLC
41 citations, 0.18%
|
|
American Association for Cancer Research (AACR)
40 citations, 0.17%
|
|
JMIR Publications
36 citations, 0.16%
|
|
OAE Publishing Inc.
32 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Impact Journals
30 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Radiological Society of North America (RSNA)
28 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Onkoloski Institut Ljubljana/Institute of Oncology Ljubljana
26 citations, 0.11%
|
|
IntechOpen
26 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.
25 citations, 0.11%
|
|
25 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Society of Nuclear Medicine
20 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Society for Translational Oncology
20 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Korean Society of Medical Physics
19 citations, 0.08%
|
|
Publishing House ABV Press
18 citations, 0.08%
|
|
Japanese Society of Radiological Technology
18 citations, 0.08%
|
|
IOS Press
16 citations, 0.07%
|
|
Jones and Barlett Publishers
16 citations, 0.07%
|
|
Medknow
16 citations, 0.07%
|
|
16 citations, 0.07%
|
|
Radiation Research Society
15 citations, 0.07%
|
|
European Respiratory Society (ERS)
15 citations, 0.07%
|
|
Harborside Press, LLC
15 citations, 0.07%
|
|
SPIE-Intl Soc Optical Eng
14 citations, 0.06%
|
|
American Chemical Society (ACS)
13 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Korean Cancer Association
13 citations, 0.06%
|
|
F1000 Research
11 citations, 0.05%
|
|
XMLink
11 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Walter de Gruyter
10 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Edizioni Minerva Medica
10 citations, 0.04%
|
|
American Roentgen Ray Society
10 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Moffitt Cancer Center
10 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Scientific Research Publishing
10 citations, 0.04%
|
|
ifmbe proceedings
8 citations, 0.03%
|
|
American Society of Hematology
8 citations, 0.03%
|
|
EDP Sciences
7 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)
7 citations, 0.03%
|
|
AIP Publishing
7 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Ignis Publications
7 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Massachusetts Medical Society
7 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Neoplasia Press
7 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Media Sphere Publishing House
7 citations, 0.03%
|
|
IGI Global
7 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Higher Education Press
6 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Oncology Nursing Society
6 citations, 0.03%
|
|
International Dose-Response Society
6 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Emerald
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Optica Publishing Group
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Brazilian Society of Urology
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Korean Academy of Medical Sciences
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Joint Commission Resources Inc.
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishing
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Scientific Scholar
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Asian Society of Gynecologic Oncology; Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology and Colposcopy
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
World Scientific
4 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Deutscher Arzte-Verlag GmbH
4 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Tomsk Cancer Research Institute
4 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Hans Publishers
4 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Korean Breast Cancer Society
4 citations, 0.02%
|
|
3 citations, 0.01%
|
|
University of California Press
3 citations, 0.01%
|
|
3 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Asian Pacific Organization for Cancer Prevention
3 citations, 0.01%
|
|
The Endocrine Society
3 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology and Colposcopy
3 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Mark Allen Group
3 citations, 0.01%
|
|
The Royal College of Surgeons of England
3 citations, 0.01%
|
|
The Korean Brain Tumor Society; The Korean Society for Neuro-Oncology (KAMJE)
3 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Brieflands
3 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Rostov State Medical University
3 citations, 0.01%
|
|
The Japanese Congress of Neurological Surgeons
3 citations, 0.01%
|
|
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
2 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
|
Publishing organizations
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
|
|
University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
171 publications, 8.27%
|
|
University of Michigan
77 publications, 3.73%
|
|
Harvard University
76 publications, 3.68%
|
|
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center
76 publications, 3.68%
|
|
University of Pennsylvania
76 publications, 3.68%
|
|
Massachusetts General Hospital
72 publications, 3.48%
|
|
Stanford University
68 publications, 3.29%
|
|
Mayo Clinic
60 publications, 2.9%
|
|
University of Toronto
60 publications, 2.9%
|
|
University of Washington
59 publications, 2.85%
|
|
Johns Hopkins University
57 publications, 2.76%
|
|
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
56 publications, 2.71%
|
|
University of Florida
50 publications, 2.42%
|
|
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
49 publications, 2.37%
|
|
Medical College of Wisconsin
48 publications, 2.32%
|
|
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
47 publications, 2.27%
|
|
Brigham and Women's Hospital
46 publications, 2.23%
|
|
University of California, San Diego
46 publications, 2.23%
|
|
Yale University
43 publications, 2.08%
|
|
Washington University in St. Louis
43 publications, 2.08%
|
|
Princess Margaret Cancer Centre
43 publications, 2.08%
|
|
Emory University
41 publications, 1.98%
|
|
Duke University Hospital
40 publications, 1.94%
|
|
Duke University
39 publications, 1.89%
|
|
Cleveland Clinic
38 publications, 1.84%
|
|
University of California, Los Angeles
36 publications, 1.74%
|
|
University of California, San Francisco
33 publications, 1.6%
|
|
H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute
29 publications, 1.4%
|
|
Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre
29 publications, 1.4%
|
|
University of Alabama at Birmingham
28 publications, 1.35%
|
|
Virginia Commonwealth University
27 publications, 1.31%
|
|
University of Wisconsin–Madison
27 publications, 1.31%
|
|
University of Chicago
26 publications, 1.26%
|
|
Thomas Jefferson University
26 publications, 1.26%
|
|
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
25 publications, 1.21%
|
|
Mayo Clinic Arizona
25 publications, 1.21%
|
|
UPMC Hillman Cancer Center
24 publications, 1.16%
|
|
Wayne State University
22 publications, 1.06%
|
|
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
22 publications, 1.06%
|
|
Case Western Reserve University
21 publications, 1.02%
|
|
University of Maryland, Baltimore
21 publications, 1.02%
|
|
Fox Chase Cancer Center
20 publications, 0.97%
|
|
University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus
19 publications, 0.92%
|
|
University of Utah
18 publications, 0.87%
|
|
University of Southern California
17 publications, 0.82%
|
|
Loyola University Chicago
17 publications, 0.82%
|
|
University of Miami
17 publications, 0.82%
|
|
University of Calgary
15 publications, 0.73%
|
|
UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center
15 publications, 0.73%
|
|
Oregon Health & Science University
14 publications, 0.68%
|
|
City of Hope National Medical Center
14 publications, 0.68%
|
|
Western University
13 publications, 0.63%
|
|
University of Colorado Denver
13 publications, 0.63%
|
|
Cornell University
12 publications, 0.58%
|
|
Columbia University
12 publications, 0.58%
|
|
New York University
12 publications, 0.58%
|
|
University of Arizona
12 publications, 0.58%
|
|
Albert Einstein College of Medicine
12 publications, 0.58%
|
|
McGill University Health Centre
12 publications, 0.58%
|
|
University of Texas Medical Branch
12 publications, 0.58%
|
|
Huntsman Cancer Institute
12 publications, 0.58%
|
|
Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre
11 publications, 0.53%
|
|
Northwestern University
11 publications, 0.53%
|
|
Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center
11 publications, 0.53%
|
|
Netherlands Cancer Institute
11 publications, 0.53%
|
|
National Cancer Institute
11 publications, 0.53%
|
|
University of Sydney
10 publications, 0.48%
|
|
West Virginia University
10 publications, 0.48%
|
|
Rush University Medical Center
10 publications, 0.48%
|
|
Dartmouth College
10 publications, 0.48%
|
|
Brown University
10 publications, 0.48%
|
|
Houston Methodist Hospital
10 publications, 0.48%
|
|
Indiana University School of Medicine
10 publications, 0.48%
|
|
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
10 publications, 0.48%
|
|
New York University Langone Health
9 publications, 0.44%
|
|
University of California, Davis
9 publications, 0.44%
|
|
Vanderbilt University Medical Center
9 publications, 0.44%
|
|
Vanderbilt University
9 publications, 0.44%
|
|
University of British Columbia
9 publications, 0.44%
|
|
University Medical Center Utrecht
9 publications, 0.44%
|
|
Mayo Clinic in Florida
9 publications, 0.44%
|
|
University of Alberta
9 publications, 0.44%
|
|
Wake Forest University
9 publications, 0.44%
|
|
University of Rochester Medical Center
9 publications, 0.44%
|
|
Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center – Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute
8 publications, 0.39%
|
|
University of South Florida
8 publications, 0.39%
|
|
Vrije Universiteit Medical Center
8 publications, 0.39%
|
|
Baylor College of Medicine
8 publications, 0.39%
|
|
Tata Memorial Centre
7 publications, 0.34%
|
|
Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College
7 publications, 0.34%
|
|
Boston University
7 publications, 0.34%
|
|
Ohio State University
7 publications, 0.34%
|
|
Tufts University
7 publications, 0.34%
|
|
Loyola University Medical Center
7 publications, 0.34%
|
|
McMaster University
7 publications, 0.34%
|
|
Amsterdam University Medical Center
7 publications, 0.34%
|
|
University of North Carolina Hospitals
7 publications, 0.34%
|
|
University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston
7 publications, 0.34%
|
|
University of Nebraska Medical Center
7 publications, 0.34%
|
|
University of New South Wales
6 publications, 0.29%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
|
Publishing organizations in 5 years
10
20
30
40
50
60
|
|
University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
60 publications, 7.08%
|
|
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center
37 publications, 4.36%
|
|
Stanford University
34 publications, 4.01%
|
|
University of Michigan
32 publications, 3.77%
|
|
Johns Hopkins University
29 publications, 3.42%
|
|
Massachusetts General Hospital
28 publications, 3.3%
|
|
Mayo Clinic
27 publications, 3.18%
|
|
University of Pennsylvania
27 publications, 3.18%
|
|
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
25 publications, 2.95%
|
|
University of Florida
25 publications, 2.95%
|
|
Harvard University
24 publications, 2.83%
|
|
University of Washington
24 publications, 2.83%
|
|
Medical College of Wisconsin
22 publications, 2.59%
|
|
Yale University
19 publications, 2.24%
|
|
Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre
19 publications, 2.24%
|
|
Emory University
18 publications, 2.12%
|
|
University of Toronto
17 publications, 2%
|
|
Duke University
16 publications, 1.89%
|
|
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
16 publications, 1.89%
|
|
University of Wisconsin–Madison
16 publications, 1.89%
|
|
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
16 publications, 1.89%
|
|
Washington University in St. Louis
15 publications, 1.77%
|
|
Brigham and Women's Hospital
15 publications, 1.77%
|
|
Loyola University Chicago
14 publications, 1.65%
|
|
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
13 publications, 1.53%
|
|
University of California, Los Angeles
13 publications, 1.53%
|
|
University of California, San Diego
13 publications, 1.53%
|
|
Virginia Commonwealth University
13 publications, 1.53%
|
|
City of Hope National Medical Center
13 publications, 1.53%
|
|
University of California, San Francisco
12 publications, 1.42%
|
|
Wayne State University
12 publications, 1.42%
|
|
Mayo Clinic Arizona
12 publications, 1.42%
|
|
University of Alabama at Birmingham
12 publications, 1.42%
|
|
Princess Margaret Cancer Centre
12 publications, 1.42%
|
|
Duke University Hospital
11 publications, 1.3%
|
|
Huntsman Cancer Institute
10 publications, 1.18%
|
|
University of Utah
10 publications, 1.18%
|
|
National Cancer Institute
10 publications, 1.18%
|
|
Case Western Reserve University
9 publications, 1.06%
|
|
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
9 publications, 1.06%
|
|
Cleveland Clinic
9 publications, 1.06%
|
|
H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute
9 publications, 1.06%
|
|
Dartmouth College
8 publications, 0.94%
|
|
University of Maryland, Baltimore
8 publications, 0.94%
|
|
Thomas Jefferson University
8 publications, 0.94%
|
|
University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus
8 publications, 0.94%
|
|
University of Southern California
7 publications, 0.83%
|
|
New York University
7 publications, 0.83%
|
|
University of Chicago
7 publications, 0.83%
|
|
University of Sydney
6 publications, 0.71%
|
|
New York University Langone Health
6 publications, 0.71%
|
|
Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center – Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute
6 publications, 0.71%
|
|
UPMC Hillman Cancer Center
6 publications, 0.71%
|
|
University of Miami
6 publications, 0.71%
|
|
Cornell University
5 publications, 0.59%
|
|
Columbia University Irving Medical Center
5 publications, 0.59%
|
|
Oregon Health & Science University
5 publications, 0.59%
|
|
Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center
5 publications, 0.59%
|
|
Rush University Medical Center
5 publications, 0.59%
|
|
Amsterdam University Medical Center
5 publications, 0.59%
|
|
Fox Chase Cancer Center
5 publications, 0.59%
|
|
Indiana University School of Medicine
5 publications, 0.59%
|
|
Royal North Shore Hospital
4 publications, 0.47%
|
|
Columbia University
4 publications, 0.47%
|
|
Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center
4 publications, 0.47%
|
|
McMaster University
4 publications, 0.47%
|
|
Dartmouth–Hitchcock Medical Center
4 publications, 0.47%
|
|
Netherlands Cancer Institute
4 publications, 0.47%
|
|
Institut Curie
4 publications, 0.47%
|
|
Mayo Clinic in Florida
4 publications, 0.47%
|
|
Western University
4 publications, 0.47%
|
|
University of Calgary
4 publications, 0.47%
|
|
University of Kentucky
4 publications, 0.47%
|
|
University of Rochester Medical Center
4 publications, 0.47%
|
|
University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston
4 publications, 0.47%
|
|
Zhejiang University
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Peking Union Medical College Hospital
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
University of Turin
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
University of Manchester
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Ghent University Hospital
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
University of Queensland
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Northwestern University
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
University of Missouri–Kansas City
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Moores Cancer Center
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
UC Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
University of Arizona
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Albert Einstein College of Medicine
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Oakland University
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
McGill University Health Centre
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
University of British Columbia
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
University Medical Center Utrecht
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Brown University
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
University Medical Center Groningen
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
University of Maryland Medical Center
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Houston Methodist Hospital
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
University of Texas Medical Branch
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
10
20
30
40
50
60
|
Publishing countries
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
|
|
USA
|
USA, 1328, 64.25%
USA
1328 publications, 64.25%
|
Canada
|
Canada, 162, 7.84%
Canada
162 publications, 7.84%
|
United Kingdom
|
United Kingdom, 53, 2.56%
United Kingdom
53 publications, 2.56%
|
Netherlands
|
Netherlands, 44, 2.13%
Netherlands
44 publications, 2.13%
|
Australia
|
Australia, 36, 1.74%
Australia
36 publications, 1.74%
|
China
|
China, 35, 1.69%
China
35 publications, 1.69%
|
Japan
|
Japan, 32, 1.55%
Japan
32 publications, 1.55%
|
Republic of Korea
|
Republic of Korea, 30, 1.45%
Republic of Korea
30 publications, 1.45%
|
Germany
|
Germany, 26, 1.26%
Germany
26 publications, 1.26%
|
Italy
|
Italy, 21, 1.02%
Italy
21 publications, 1.02%
|
France
|
France, 20, 0.97%
France
20 publications, 0.97%
|
India
|
India, 17, 0.82%
India
17 publications, 0.82%
|
Belgium
|
Belgium, 10, 0.48%
Belgium
10 publications, 0.48%
|
Ireland
|
Ireland, 9, 0.44%
Ireland
9 publications, 0.44%
|
Switzerland
|
Switzerland, 9, 0.44%
Switzerland
9 publications, 0.44%
|
Israel
|
Israel, 8, 0.39%
Israel
8 publications, 0.39%
|
Denmark
|
Denmark, 6, 0.29%
Denmark
6 publications, 0.29%
|
Spain
|
Spain, 5, 0.24%
Spain
5 publications, 0.24%
|
Saudi Arabia
|
Saudi Arabia, 5, 0.24%
Saudi Arabia
5 publications, 0.24%
|
Turkey
|
Turkey, 5, 0.24%
Turkey
5 publications, 0.24%
|
Panama
|
Panama, 4, 0.19%
Panama
4 publications, 0.19%
|
Austria
|
Austria, 3, 0.15%
Austria
3 publications, 0.15%
|
Brazil
|
Brazil, 3, 0.15%
Brazil
3 publications, 0.15%
|
Egypt
|
Egypt, 3, 0.15%
Egypt
3 publications, 0.15%
|
Mexico
|
Mexico, 3, 0.15%
Mexico
3 publications, 0.15%
|
Sweden
|
Sweden, 3, 0.15%
Sweden
3 publications, 0.15%
|
South Africa
|
South Africa, 3, 0.15%
South Africa
3 publications, 0.15%
|
Argentina
|
Argentina, 2, 0.1%
Argentina
2 publications, 0.1%
|
Greece
|
Greece, 2, 0.1%
Greece
2 publications, 0.1%
|
Norway
|
Norway, 2, 0.1%
Norway
2 publications, 0.1%
|
Singapore
|
Singapore, 2, 0.1%
Singapore
2 publications, 0.1%
|
Slovenia
|
Slovenia, 2, 0.1%
Slovenia
2 publications, 0.1%
|
Chile
|
Chile, 2, 0.1%
Chile
2 publications, 0.1%
|
Hungary
|
Hungary, 1, 0.05%
Hungary
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Gabon
|
Gabon, 1, 0.05%
Gabon
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Georgia
|
Georgia, 1, 0.05%
Georgia
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Jordan
|
Jordan, 1, 0.05%
Jordan
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Cyprus
|
Cyprus, 1, 0.05%
Cyprus
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Colombia
|
Colombia, 1, 0.05%
Colombia
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Lebanon
|
Lebanon, 1, 0.05%
Lebanon
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Lithuania
|
Lithuania, 1, 0.05%
Lithuania
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Morocco
|
Morocco, 1, 0.05%
Morocco
1 publication, 0.05%
|
New Zealand
|
New Zealand, 1, 0.05%
New Zealand
1 publication, 0.05%
|
UAE
|
UAE, 1, 0.05%
UAE
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Poland
|
Poland, 1, 0.05%
Poland
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Puerto Rico
|
Puerto Rico, 1, 0.05%
Puerto Rico
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Thailand
|
Thailand, 1, 0.05%
Thailand
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Philippines
|
Philippines, 1, 0.05%
Philippines
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Czech Republic
|
Czech Republic, 1, 0.05%
Czech Republic
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Show all (19 more) | |
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
|
Publishing countries in 5 years
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
|
|
USA
|
USA, 428, 50.47%
USA
428 publications, 50.47%
|
Canada
|
Canada, 45, 5.31%
Canada
45 publications, 5.31%
|
United Kingdom
|
United Kingdom, 22, 2.59%
United Kingdom
22 publications, 2.59%
|
China
|
China, 16, 1.89%
China
16 publications, 1.89%
|
Netherlands
|
Netherlands, 15, 1.77%
Netherlands
15 publications, 1.77%
|
Australia
|
Australia, 14, 1.65%
Australia
14 publications, 1.65%
|
Italy
|
Italy, 13, 1.53%
Italy
13 publications, 1.53%
|
Republic of Korea
|
Republic of Korea, 13, 1.53%
Republic of Korea
13 publications, 1.53%
|
Germany
|
Germany, 8, 0.94%
Germany
8 publications, 0.94%
|
Japan
|
Japan, 8, 0.94%
Japan
8 publications, 0.94%
|
France
|
France, 7, 0.83%
France
7 publications, 0.83%
|
India
|
India, 7, 0.83%
India
7 publications, 0.83%
|
Belgium
|
Belgium, 4, 0.47%
Belgium
4 publications, 0.47%
|
Denmark
|
Denmark, 4, 0.47%
Denmark
4 publications, 0.47%
|
Spain
|
Spain, 3, 0.35%
Spain
3 publications, 0.35%
|
Turkey
|
Turkey, 3, 0.35%
Turkey
3 publications, 0.35%
|
Switzerland
|
Switzerland, 3, 0.35%
Switzerland
3 publications, 0.35%
|
Brazil
|
Brazil, 2, 0.24%
Brazil
2 publications, 0.24%
|
Israel
|
Israel, 2, 0.24%
Israel
2 publications, 0.24%
|
South Africa
|
South Africa, 2, 0.24%
South Africa
2 publications, 0.24%
|
Austria
|
Austria, 1, 0.12%
Austria
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Hungary
|
Hungary, 1, 0.12%
Hungary
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Georgia
|
Georgia, 1, 0.12%
Georgia
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Ireland
|
Ireland, 1, 0.12%
Ireland
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Lebanon
|
Lebanon, 1, 0.12%
Lebanon
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Mexico
|
Mexico, 1, 0.12%
Mexico
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Puerto Rico
|
Puerto Rico, 1, 0.12%
Puerto Rico
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Saudi Arabia
|
Saudi Arabia, 1, 0.12%
Saudi Arabia
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Singapore
|
Singapore, 1, 0.12%
Singapore
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Slovenia
|
Slovenia, 1, 0.12%
Slovenia
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Philippines
|
Philippines, 1, 0.12%
Philippines
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Chile
|
Chile, 1, 0.12%
Chile
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Sweden
|
Sweden, 1, 0.12%
Sweden
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Show all (3 more) | |
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
|