Are you a researcher?
Create a profile to get free access to personal recommendations for colleagues and new articles.
SCImago
Q1
Impact factor
0.4
SJR
0.278
CiteScore
0.9
Categories
Music
Visual Arts and Performing Arts
Computer Science Applications
Engineering (miscellaneous)
Areas
Arts and Humanities
Computer Science
Engineering
Years of issue
2002-2025
journal names
Leonardo
Top-3 citing journals

Leonardo
(668 citations)

Lecture Notes in Computer Science
(339 citations)

Behavioral and Brain Sciences
(215 citations)
Top-3 organizations

University of Plymouth
(79 publications)

Washington State University
(43 publications)

Saginaw Valley State University
(38 publications)

Griffith University
(8 publications)

University of Technology Sydney
(8 publications)

Aalto University
(7 publications)
Top-3 countries
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
|
|
Leonardo
668 citations, 5.33%
|
|
Lecture Notes in Computer Science
339 citations, 2.7%
|
|
Behavioral and Brain Sciences
215 citations, 1.72%
|
|
Digital Creativity
133 citations, 1.06%
|
|
Frontiers in Psychology
117 citations, 0.93%
|
|
Perception
95 citations, 0.76%
|
|
Springer Series on Cultural Computing
93 citations, 0.74%
|
|
SSRN Electronic Journal
73 citations, 0.58%
|
|
Empirical Studies of the Arts
52 citations, 0.41%
|
|
Organised Sound
52 citations, 0.41%
|
|
Advances in Multimedia and Interactive Technologies
50 citations, 0.4%
|
|
i-Perception
48 citations, 0.38%
|
|
Communications in Computer and Information Science
47 citations, 0.37%
|
|
Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social-Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering
46 citations, 0.37%
|
|
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
43 citations, 0.34%
|
|
PLoS ONE
43 citations, 0.34%
|
|
Journal of Mathematics and the Arts
42 citations, 0.34%
|
|
Sustainability
41 citations, 0.33%
|
|
Design Studies
38 citations, 0.3%
|
|
Computer Music Journal
36 citations, 0.29%
|
|
Color Research and Application
36 citations, 0.29%
|
|
Interdisciplinary Science Reviews
31 citations, 0.25%
|
|
Computers and Graphics
30 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Nexus Network Journal
29 citations, 0.23%
|
|
Journal of New Music Research
29 citations, 0.23%
|
|
IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications
29 citations, 0.23%
|
|
Artificial Life
28 citations, 0.22%
|
|
International Journal of Performance Arts and Digital Media
28 citations, 0.22%
|
|
International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction
27 citations, 0.22%
|
|
IEEE Access
27 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Convergence
26 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Scientific Reports
26 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Perception & Psychophysics
26 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Contemporary Music Review
25 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Acta Psychologica
25 citations, 0.2%
|
|
IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics
25 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Springer Series in Optical Sciences
24 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Journal of Visual Art Practice
24 citations, 0.19%
|
|
International Journal of Human Computer Studies
23 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Creativity Research Journal
23 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Vision Research
22 citations, 0.18%
|
|
AI and Society
22 citations, 0.18%
|
|
International Journal of Architectural Computing
21 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Ecological Psychology
20 citations, 0.16%
|
|
International Journal of Technology and Design Education
20 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Visual Communication
20 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Multimedia Tools and Applications
20 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Review of General Psychology
19 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Studies in Computational Intelligence
19 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Leonardo Music Journal
19 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing
19 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Acta Astronautica
19 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Advances in Media, Entertainment, and the Arts
19 citations, 0.15%
|
|
International Journal of Art and Design Education
18 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Art and Perception
18 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Isis
18 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Performance Research
18 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Proceedings of the ACM on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques
18 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Technoetic Arts
17 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Applied Sciences (Switzerland)
17 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Sensors
17 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Symmetry
17 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Personal and Ubiquitous Computing
17 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Handbook of Research on Teaching Methods in Language Translation and Interpretation
17 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Psychonomic Bulletin and Review
16 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Visual Computer
16 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Public Understanding of Science
16 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Kybernetes
16 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems
16 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Musicae Scientiae
16 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
15 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Poetics
15 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Journal of Communication
15 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing: AIEDAM
15 citations, 0.12%
|
|
CoDesign
15 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Humanities and Social Sciences Communications
15 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
14 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Journal of Vision
14 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Visual Cognition
14 citations, 0.11%
|
|
American Art
14 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences
14 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Entropy
13 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Perceptual and Motor Skills
13 citations, 0.1%
|
|
ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction
13 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Continuum
13 citations, 0.1%
|
|
New Media and Society
13 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Multisensory research
13 citations, 0.1%
|
|
CAD Computer Aided Design
13 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Heliyon
13 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Circuit Musiques contemporaines
13 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Pen-and-Paper User Interfaces
13 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Social Semiotics
12 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Futures
12 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Computer Graphics Forum
12 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage
12 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Frontiers in Robotics and AI
12 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Physics of Life Reviews
12 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Arts
12 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Rivista di Estetica
11 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies
11 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
|
Citing publishers
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
|
|
Springer Nature
1687 citations, 13.46%
|
|
Taylor & Francis
1360 citations, 10.85%
|
|
Elsevier
1176 citations, 9.38%
|
|
MIT Press
787 citations, 6.28%
|
|
SAGE
674 citations, 5.38%
|
|
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
477 citations, 3.81%
|
|
Wiley
435 citations, 3.47%
|
|
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
404 citations, 3.22%
|
|
Cambridge University Press
400 citations, 3.19%
|
|
MDPI
292 citations, 2.33%
|
|
Frontiers Media S.A.
257 citations, 2.05%
|
|
IGI Global
200 citations, 1.6%
|
|
Oxford University Press
145 citations, 1.16%
|
|
OpenEdition
119 citations, 0.95%
|
|
Emerald
99 citations, 0.79%
|
|
Intellect
76 citations, 0.61%
|
|
Walter de Gruyter
73 citations, 0.58%
|
|
Social Science Electronic Publishing
73 citations, 0.58%
|
|
University of Chicago Press
70 citations, 0.56%
|
|
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
52 citations, 0.41%
|
|
Brill
42 citations, 0.34%
|
|
IOP Publishing
37 citations, 0.3%
|
|
Consortium Erudit
36 citations, 0.29%
|
|
The Royal Society
32 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Duke University Press
30 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Hindawi Limited
30 citations, 0.24%
|
|
American Psychological Association (APA)
27 citations, 0.22%
|
|
John Benjamins Publishing Company
25 citations, 0.2%
|
|
World Scientific
24 citations, 0.19%
|
|
EDP Sciences
24 citations, 0.19%
|
|
AIP Publishing
22 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Edinburgh University Press
19 citations, 0.15%
|
|
SPIE-Intl Soc Optical Eng
18 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO)
17 citations, 0.14%
|
|
CAIRN
17 citations, 0.14%
|
|
American Chemical Society (ACS)
16 citations, 0.13%
|
|
University of Illinois Press
16 citations, 0.13%
|
|
ASME International
15 citations, 0.12%
|
|
SciELO
15 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)
13 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
13 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)
12 citations, 0.1%
|
|
BMJ
12 citations, 0.1%
|
|
University of California Press
11 citations, 0.09%
|
|
11 citations, 0.09%
|
|
American Physical Society (APS)
11 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Optica Publishing Group
10 citations, 0.08%
|
|
Fundacio per la Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
9 citations, 0.07%
|
|
University of Toronto Press Inc. (UTPress)
9 citations, 0.07%
|
|
F1000 Research
9 citations, 0.07%
|
|
The Pennsylvania State University Press
9 citations, 0.07%
|
|
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
8 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Pleiades Publishing
8 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Mary Ann Liebert
8 citations, 0.06%
|
|
8 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Copernicus
8 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Society of Petroleum Engineers
8 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Annual Reviews
8 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Scientific Research Publishing
8 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Trans Tech Publications
7 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Japan Society of Civil Engineers
7 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Ubiquity Press
7 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Hans Publishers
7 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Editora Edgard Blucher, Ltda.
7 citations, 0.06%
|
|
6 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Centre National De La Recherche Scientifique
6 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Tongji University Press
6 citations, 0.05%
|
|
American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT)
6 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Japan Society of Kansei Engineering
6 citations, 0.05%
|
|
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
5 citations, 0.04%
|
|
American Meteorological Society
5 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Pensoft Publishers
5 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Masaryk University Press
5 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Peoples' Friendship University of Russia
5 citations, 0.04%
|
|
JMIR Publications
5 citations, 0.04%
|
|
IntechOpen
5 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Equinox Publishing
5 citations, 0.04%
|
|
National Association of Biology Teachers
4 citations, 0.03%
|
|
4 citations, 0.03%
|
|
International Union of Crystallography (IUCr)
4 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Mathematical Association of America
4 citations, 0.03%
|
|
PeerJ
4 citations, 0.03%
|
|
4 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Open Library of Humanities
4 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Universidade Catolica Portuguesa
4 citations, 0.03%
|
|
4 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Thomas Telford
4 citations, 0.03%
|
|
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
4 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Hogrefe Publishing Group
4 citations, 0.03%
|
|
RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Arastirmalari Dergisi
4 citations, 0.03%
|
|
IOS Press
3 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Liverpool University Press
3 citations, 0.02%
|
|
American Society for Microbiology
3 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Kyushu University
3 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Associazone culturale Pragma
3 citations, 0.02%
|
|
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)
3 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Society for Music Theory
3 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Archaeological Institute of America
3 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Korean Society of Design Science
3 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Eizo Joho Media Gakkai
3 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
|
Publishing organizations
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
|
|
University of Plymouth
79 publications, 0.86%
|
|
Washington State University
43 publications, 0.47%
|
|
Saginaw Valley State University
38 publications, 0.42%
|
|
University of Technology Sydney
35 publications, 0.38%
|
|
University of Texas at Dallas
29 publications, 0.32%
|
|
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
28 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Cornell University
24 publications, 0.26%
|
|
Georgia Institute of technology
22 publications, 0.24%
|
|
Griffith University
20 publications, 0.22%
|
|
University of California, Santa Barbara
20 publications, 0.22%
|
|
University of New South Wales
19 publications, 0.21%
|
|
University of Western Australia
18 publications, 0.2%
|
|
University of Cambridge
16 publications, 0.18%
|
|
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
16 publications, 0.18%
|
|
Michigan State University
16 publications, 0.18%
|
|
New York University
16 publications, 0.18%
|
|
University of California, Los Angeles
16 publications, 0.18%
|
|
Simon Fraser University
16 publications, 0.18%
|
|
University of Southampton
15 publications, 0.16%
|
|
University of Sussex
15 publications, 0.16%
|
|
Texas Woman's University
15 publications, 0.16%
|
|
University of Waikato
14 publications, 0.15%
|
|
Arizona State University
14 publications, 0.15%
|
|
City University of Hong Kong
14 publications, 0.15%
|
|
Tsinghua University
13 publications, 0.14%
|
|
Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology
13 publications, 0.14%
|
|
Soongsil University
13 publications, 0.14%
|
|
University of California, Santa Cruz
13 publications, 0.14%
|
|
University College London
12 publications, 0.13%
|
|
University of Melbourne
12 publications, 0.13%
|
|
Stanford University
12 publications, 0.13%
|
|
University of California, Berkeley
12 publications, 0.13%
|
|
University of Toronto
12 publications, 0.13%
|
|
Aalto University
11 publications, 0.12%
|
|
University of Nottingham
11 publications, 0.12%
|
|
University of Sydney
11 publications, 0.12%
|
|
Brown University
11 publications, 0.12%
|
|
Cardiff University
11 publications, 0.12%
|
|
Queen Mary University of London
10 publications, 0.11%
|
|
University of Edinburgh
10 publications, 0.11%
|
|
University of Michigan
10 publications, 0.11%
|
|
University of Utah
10 publications, 0.11%
|
|
Université du Québec à Montréal
10 publications, 0.11%
|
|
Monash University
9 publications, 0.1%
|
|
University of Wollongong
9 publications, 0.1%
|
|
Northwestern University
9 publications, 0.1%
|
|
University of California, San Diego
9 publications, 0.1%
|
|
McGill University
9 publications, 0.1%
|
|
Lancaster University
9 publications, 0.1%
|
|
University of British Columbia
9 publications, 0.1%
|
|
Purdue University
9 publications, 0.1%
|
|
University of Tokyo
9 publications, 0.1%
|
|
University of Oxford
8 publications, 0.09%
|
|
University of Southern California
8 publications, 0.09%
|
|
Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology
8 publications, 0.09%
|
|
Harvard University
8 publications, 0.09%
|
|
San Francisco State University
8 publications, 0.09%
|
|
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
8 publications, 0.09%
|
|
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
8 publications, 0.09%
|
|
University of Exeter
8 publications, 0.09%
|
|
Indiana University Bloomington
8 publications, 0.09%
|
|
Bournemouth University
8 publications, 0.09%
|
|
KTH Royal Institute of Technology
7 publications, 0.08%
|
|
Sapienza University of Rome
7 publications, 0.08%
|
|
Aarhus University
7 publications, 0.08%
|
|
Sorbonne University
7 publications, 0.08%
|
|
University of Glasgow
7 publications, 0.08%
|
|
University of South Australia
7 publications, 0.08%
|
|
Southern Cross University
7 publications, 0.08%
|
|
University of Illinois at Chicago
7 publications, 0.08%
|
|
Newcastle University
7 publications, 0.08%
|
|
Trinity College Dublin
7 publications, 0.08%
|
|
University of Sheffield
7 publications, 0.08%
|
|
Lehigh University
7 publications, 0.08%
|
|
University of Barcelona
7 publications, 0.08%
|
|
De Montfort University
7 publications, 0.08%
|
|
Western Sydney University
6 publications, 0.07%
|
|
University of Dundee
6 publications, 0.07%
|
|
University of Copenhagen
6 publications, 0.07%
|
|
University of Oslo
6 publications, 0.07%
|
|
Royal Holloway University of London
6 publications, 0.07%
|
|
Carnegie Mellon University
6 publications, 0.07%
|
|
University of Birmingham
6 publications, 0.07%
|
|
California Institute of Technology
6 publications, 0.07%
|
|
Pennsylvania State University
6 publications, 0.07%
|
|
Dalhousie University
6 publications, 0.07%
|
|
Hong Kong Baptist University
6 publications, 0.07%
|
|
University of Washington
6 publications, 0.07%
|
|
Budapest University of Technology and Economics
6 publications, 0.07%
|
|
University of Minnesota
6 publications, 0.07%
|
|
Universidade Estadual de Campinas
6 publications, 0.07%
|
|
Ontario College of Art & Design University
6 publications, 0.07%
|
|
University of Calgary
6 publications, 0.07%
|
|
University of Ljubljana
6 publications, 0.07%
|
|
University of Florida
6 publications, 0.07%
|
|
Yildiz Technical University
5 publications, 0.05%
|
|
Tongji University
5 publications, 0.05%
|
|
Stockholm University
5 publications, 0.05%
|
|
Brunel University London
5 publications, 0.05%
|
|
National University of Singapore
5 publications, 0.05%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
|
Publishing organizations in 5 years
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
|
|
University of Technology Sydney
8 publications, 1.03%
|
|
Griffith University
8 publications, 1.03%
|
|
Aalto University
7 publications, 0.9%
|
|
Arizona State University
7 publications, 0.9%
|
|
University of Plymouth
7 publications, 0.9%
|
|
KTH Royal Institute of Technology
6 publications, 0.77%
|
|
University of Melbourne
6 publications, 0.77%
|
|
University of South Australia
6 publications, 0.77%
|
|
Hong Kong Baptist University
6 publications, 0.77%
|
|
University of California, Santa Barbara
6 publications, 0.77%
|
|
University of California, Santa Cruz
6 publications, 0.77%
|
|
University of Oxford
5 publications, 0.65%
|
|
Cornell University
5 publications, 0.65%
|
|
University of the Witwatersrand
5 publications, 0.65%
|
|
Washington State University
5 publications, 0.65%
|
|
Tongji University
4 publications, 0.52%
|
|
University of New South Wales
4 publications, 0.52%
|
|
University College London
4 publications, 0.52%
|
|
Royal Holloway University of London
4 publications, 0.52%
|
|
Queensland University of Technology
4 publications, 0.52%
|
|
California Institute of Technology
4 publications, 0.52%
|
|
University of Western Australia
4 publications, 0.52%
|
|
Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology
4 publications, 0.52%
|
|
Macquarie University
4 publications, 0.52%
|
|
Flinders University
4 publications, 0.52%
|
|
Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology
4 publications, 0.52%
|
|
City University of Hong Kong
4 publications, 0.52%
|
|
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
4 publications, 0.52%
|
|
University of Texas at Dallas
4 publications, 0.52%
|
|
Trinity College Dublin
4 publications, 0.52%
|
|
McGill University
4 publications, 0.52%
|
|
Kyushu University
4 publications, 0.52%
|
|
Lehigh University
4 publications, 0.52%
|
|
Université du Québec à Montréal
4 publications, 0.52%
|
|
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
3 publications, 0.39%
|
|
Stockholm University
3 publications, 0.39%
|
|
Queen Mary University of London
3 publications, 0.39%
|
|
Aarhus University
3 publications, 0.39%
|
|
University of Sydney
3 publications, 0.39%
|
|
University of Wollongong
3 publications, 0.39%
|
|
University of the Sunshine Coast
3 publications, 0.39%
|
|
Stanford University
3 publications, 0.39%
|
|
Columbia University
3 publications, 0.39%
|
|
Northeastern University
3 publications, 0.39%
|
|
Simon Fraser University
3 publications, 0.39%
|
|
University of British Columbia
3 publications, 0.39%
|
|
University of Leeds
3 publications, 0.39%
|
|
University of Tokyo
3 publications, 0.39%
|
|
Universidad Complutense de Madrid
3 publications, 0.39%
|
|
University of Toronto
3 publications, 0.39%
|
|
Grenoble Alpes University
2 publications, 0.26%
|
|
Nanjing University of the Arts
2 publications, 0.26%
|
|
Sapienza University of Rome
2 publications, 0.26%
|
|
University of Copenhagen
2 publications, 0.26%
|
|
King's College London
2 publications, 0.26%
|
|
Xi'an Jiaotong–Liverpool University
2 publications, 0.26%
|
|
University of Edinburgh
2 publications, 0.26%
|
|
University of Manchester
2 publications, 0.26%
|
|
University of Nottingham
2 publications, 0.26%
|
|
University of Southern California
2 publications, 0.26%
|
|
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
2 publications, 0.26%
|
|
Carnegie Mellon University
2 publications, 0.26%
|
|
University of Southampton
2 publications, 0.26%
|
|
Yale University
2 publications, 0.26%
|
|
National Cheng Kung University
2 publications, 0.26%
|
|
Italian Institute of Technology
2 publications, 0.26%
|
|
University of Waikato
2 publications, 0.26%
|
|
Monash University
2 publications, 0.26%
|
|
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization
2 publications, 0.26%
|
|
Curtin University
2 publications, 0.26%
|
|
Swinburne University of Technology
2 publications, 0.26%
|
|
University of Tasmania
2 publications, 0.26%
|
|
Illawarra Health and Medical Research Institute
2 publications, 0.26%
|
|
Virginia Tech
2 publications, 0.26%
|
|
Soongsil University
2 publications, 0.26%
|
|
Harvard University
2 publications, 0.26%
|
|
New York University
2 publications, 0.26%
|
|
University of Washington
2 publications, 0.26%
|
|
University of California, San Diego
2 publications, 0.26%
|
|
University of California, Irvine
2 publications, 0.26%
|
|
Georgia State University
2 publications, 0.26%
|
|
University of Ioannina
2 publications, 0.26%
|
|
Austral University of Chile
2 publications, 0.26%
|
|
Fraunhofer Institute for Reliability and Microintegration
2 publications, 0.26%
|
|
Cardiff Metropolitan University
2 publications, 0.26%
|
|
University for Continuing Education Krems
2 publications, 0.26%
|
|
University of Pennsylvania
2 publications, 0.26%
|
|
Ontario College of Art & Design University
2 publications, 0.26%
|
|
De Montfort University
2 publications, 0.26%
|
|
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
2 publications, 0.26%
|
|
University of Colorado Boulder
2 publications, 0.26%
|
|
Texas A&M University – Kingsville
2 publications, 0.26%
|
|
University of Utah
2 publications, 0.26%
|
|
Saint Petersburg State University
1 publication, 0.13%
|
|
Sabanci University
1 publication, 0.13%
|
|
Ege University
1 publication, 0.13%
|
|
Yildiz Technical University
1 publication, 0.13%
|
|
Tsinghua University
1 publication, 0.13%
|
|
Zhejiang University
1 publication, 0.13%
|
|
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences
1 publication, 0.13%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
|
Publishing countries
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
|
|
USA
|
USA, 1206, 13.2%
USA
1206 publications, 13.2%
|
United Kingdom
|
United Kingdom, 410, 4.49%
United Kingdom
410 publications, 4.49%
|
Australia
|
Australia, 267, 2.92%
Australia
267 publications, 2.92%
|
Canada
|
Canada, 143, 1.57%
Canada
143 publications, 1.57%
|
France
|
France, 116, 1.27%
France
116 publications, 1.27%
|
Belgium
|
Belgium, 110, 1.2%
Belgium
110 publications, 1.2%
|
China
|
China, 83, 0.91%
China
83 publications, 0.91%
|
Germany
|
Germany, 82, 0.9%
Germany
82 publications, 0.9%
|
Italy
|
Italy, 57, 0.62%
Italy
57 publications, 0.62%
|
Republic of Korea
|
Republic of Korea, 46, 0.5%
Republic of Korea
46 publications, 0.5%
|
Japan
|
Japan, 42, 0.46%
Japan
42 publications, 0.46%
|
Spain
|
Spain, 40, 0.44%
Spain
40 publications, 0.44%
|
Netherlands
|
Netherlands, 38, 0.42%
Netherlands
38 publications, 0.42%
|
New Zealand
|
New Zealand, 35, 0.38%
New Zealand
35 publications, 0.38%
|
Sweden
|
Sweden, 33, 0.36%
Sweden
33 publications, 0.36%
|
Brazil
|
Brazil, 32, 0.35%
Brazil
32 publications, 0.35%
|
Russia
|
Russia, 29, 0.32%
Russia
29 publications, 0.32%
|
Iraq
|
Iraq, 23, 0.25%
Iraq
23 publications, 0.25%
|
Austria
|
Austria, 22, 0.24%
Austria
22 publications, 0.24%
|
Finland
|
Finland, 22, 0.24%
Finland
22 publications, 0.24%
|
Switzerland
|
Switzerland, 22, 0.24%
Switzerland
22 publications, 0.24%
|
Denmark
|
Denmark, 18, 0.2%
Denmark
18 publications, 0.2%
|
Turkey
|
Turkey, 18, 0.2%
Turkey
18 publications, 0.2%
|
Norway
|
Norway, 17, 0.19%
Norway
17 publications, 0.19%
|
Ireland
|
Ireland, 14, 0.15%
Ireland
14 publications, 0.15%
|
India
|
India, 13, 0.14%
India
13 publications, 0.14%
|
Singapore
|
Singapore, 13, 0.14%
Singapore
13 publications, 0.14%
|
Portugal
|
Portugal, 12, 0.13%
Portugal
12 publications, 0.13%
|
Israel
|
Israel, 12, 0.13%
Israel
12 publications, 0.13%
|
Colombia
|
Colombia, 12, 0.13%
Colombia
12 publications, 0.13%
|
Slovenia
|
Slovenia, 12, 0.13%
Slovenia
12 publications, 0.13%
|
Poland
|
Poland, 11, 0.12%
Poland
11 publications, 0.12%
|
South Africa
|
South Africa, 11, 0.12%
South Africa
11 publications, 0.12%
|
Hungary
|
Hungary, 9, 0.1%
Hungary
9 publications, 0.1%
|
Greece
|
Greece, 9, 0.1%
Greece
9 publications, 0.1%
|
Mexico
|
Mexico, 8, 0.09%
Mexico
8 publications, 0.09%
|
Chile
|
Chile, 8, 0.09%
Chile
8 publications, 0.09%
|
Argentina
|
Argentina, 6, 0.07%
Argentina
6 publications, 0.07%
|
Bulgaria
|
Bulgaria, 5, 0.05%
Bulgaria
5 publications, 0.05%
|
Philippines
|
Philippines, 3, 0.03%
Philippines
3 publications, 0.03%
|
Croatia
|
Croatia, 3, 0.03%
Croatia
3 publications, 0.03%
|
Czech Republic
|
Czech Republic, 3, 0.03%
Czech Republic
3 publications, 0.03%
|
Albania
|
Albania, 2, 0.02%
Albania
2 publications, 0.02%
|
Indonesia
|
Indonesia, 2, 0.02%
Indonesia
2 publications, 0.02%
|
Lebanon
|
Lebanon, 2, 0.02%
Lebanon
2 publications, 0.02%
|
Nigeria
|
Nigeria, 2, 0.02%
Nigeria
2 publications, 0.02%
|
Panama
|
Panama, 2, 0.02%
Panama
2 publications, 0.02%
|
Ukraine
|
Ukraine, 1, 0.01%
Ukraine
1 publication, 0.01%
|
Belarus
|
Belarus, 1, 0.01%
Belarus
1 publication, 0.01%
|
Estonia
|
Estonia, 1, 0.01%
Estonia
1 publication, 0.01%
|
Armenia
|
Armenia, 1, 0.01%
Armenia
1 publication, 0.01%
|
Egypt
|
Egypt, 1, 0.01%
Egypt
1 publication, 0.01%
|
Iran
|
Iran, 1, 0.01%
Iran
1 publication, 0.01%
|
Kenya
|
Kenya, 1, 0.01%
Kenya
1 publication, 0.01%
|
Latvia
|
Latvia, 1, 0.01%
Latvia
1 publication, 0.01%
|
Lithuania
|
Lithuania, 1, 0.01%
Lithuania
1 publication, 0.01%
|
Malaysia
|
Malaysia, 1, 0.01%
Malaysia
1 publication, 0.01%
|
Maldives
|
Maldives, 1, 0.01%
Maldives
1 publication, 0.01%
|
Pakistan
|
Pakistan, 1, 0.01%
Pakistan
1 publication, 0.01%
|
Romania
|
Romania, 1, 0.01%
Romania
1 publication, 0.01%
|
Saudi Arabia
|
Saudi Arabia, 1, 0.01%
Saudi Arabia
1 publication, 0.01%
|
Senegal
|
Senegal, 1, 0.01%
Senegal
1 publication, 0.01%
|
Serbia
|
Serbia, 1, 0.01%
Serbia
1 publication, 0.01%
|
Thailand
|
Thailand, 1, 0.01%
Thailand
1 publication, 0.01%
|
Show all (34 more) | |
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
|
Publishing countries in 5 years
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
|
|
USA
|
USA, 140, 18.06%
USA
140 publications, 18.06%
|
United Kingdom
|
United Kingdom, 62, 8%
United Kingdom
62 publications, 8%
|
Australia
|
Australia, 54, 6.97%
Australia
54 publications, 6.97%
|
China
|
China, 30, 3.87%
China
30 publications, 3.87%
|
Canada
|
Canada, 22, 2.84%
Canada
22 publications, 2.84%
|
France
|
France, 12, 1.55%
France
12 publications, 1.55%
|
Japan
|
Japan, 12, 1.55%
Japan
12 publications, 1.55%
|
Italy
|
Italy, 11, 1.42%
Italy
11 publications, 1.42%
|
Sweden
|
Sweden, 9, 1.16%
Sweden
9 publications, 1.16%
|
Finland
|
Finland, 8, 1.03%
Finland
8 publications, 1.03%
|
Germany
|
Germany, 7, 0.9%
Germany
7 publications, 0.9%
|
Iraq
|
Iraq, 7, 0.9%
Iraq
7 publications, 0.9%
|
Spain
|
Spain, 7, 0.9%
Spain
7 publications, 0.9%
|
Republic of Korea
|
Republic of Korea, 7, 0.9%
Republic of Korea
7 publications, 0.9%
|
Switzerland
|
Switzerland, 7, 0.9%
Switzerland
7 publications, 0.9%
|
South Africa
|
South Africa, 7, 0.9%
South Africa
7 publications, 0.9%
|
Denmark
|
Denmark, 6, 0.77%
Denmark
6 publications, 0.77%
|
New Zealand
|
New Zealand, 6, 0.77%
New Zealand
6 publications, 0.77%
|
Austria
|
Austria, 5, 0.65%
Austria
5 publications, 0.65%
|
Brazil
|
Brazil, 5, 0.65%
Brazil
5 publications, 0.65%
|
Ireland
|
Ireland, 5, 0.65%
Ireland
5 publications, 0.65%
|
India
|
India, 4, 0.52%
India
4 publications, 0.52%
|
Belgium
|
Belgium, 3, 0.39%
Belgium
3 publications, 0.39%
|
Israel
|
Israel, 3, 0.39%
Israel
3 publications, 0.39%
|
Netherlands
|
Netherlands, 3, 0.39%
Netherlands
3 publications, 0.39%
|
Poland
|
Poland, 3, 0.39%
Poland
3 publications, 0.39%
|
Singapore
|
Singapore, 3, 0.39%
Singapore
3 publications, 0.39%
|
Turkey
|
Turkey, 3, 0.39%
Turkey
3 publications, 0.39%
|
Chile
|
Chile, 3, 0.39%
Chile
3 publications, 0.39%
|
Portugal
|
Portugal, 2, 0.26%
Portugal
2 publications, 0.26%
|
Bulgaria
|
Bulgaria, 2, 0.26%
Bulgaria
2 publications, 0.26%
|
Greece
|
Greece, 2, 0.26%
Greece
2 publications, 0.26%
|
Colombia
|
Colombia, 2, 0.26%
Colombia
2 publications, 0.26%
|
Mexico
|
Mexico, 2, 0.26%
Mexico
2 publications, 0.26%
|
Panama
|
Panama, 2, 0.26%
Panama
2 publications, 0.26%
|
Russia
|
Russia, 1, 0.13%
Russia
1 publication, 0.13%
|
Ukraine
|
Ukraine, 1, 0.13%
Ukraine
1 publication, 0.13%
|
Armenia
|
Armenia, 1, 0.13%
Armenia
1 publication, 0.13%
|
Lebanon
|
Lebanon, 1, 0.13%
Lebanon
1 publication, 0.13%
|
Norway
|
Norway, 1, 0.13%
Norway
1 publication, 0.13%
|
Romania
|
Romania, 1, 0.13%
Romania
1 publication, 0.13%
|
Saudi Arabia
|
Saudi Arabia, 1, 0.13%
Saudi Arabia
1 publication, 0.13%
|
Slovenia
|
Slovenia, 1, 0.13%
Slovenia
1 publication, 0.13%
|
Czech Republic
|
Czech Republic, 1, 0.13%
Czech Republic
1 publication, 0.13%
|
Show all (14 more) | |
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
|