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
4.8
SJR
3.035
CiteScore
7.5
Categories
Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering
Management of Technology and Innovation
Management Science and Operations Research
Areas
Business, Management and Accounting
Decision Sciences
Engineering
Years of issue
1992-2025
journal names
Production and Operations Management
PROD OPER MANAG
Top-3 citing journals

Production and Operations Management
(10677 citations)

International Journal of Production Economics
(5064 citations)

European Journal of Operational Research
(4748 citations)
Top-3 organizations

University of Texas at Dallas
(158 publications)

Georgia Institute of technology
(103 publications)

University of California, Los Angeles
(95 publications)

University of Texas at Dallas
(56 publications)

University of Florida
(53 publications)

University of Houston
(45 publications)
Most cited in 5 years
Found
Publications found: 1369
Q1

Cosimulation-based biomechanics of the human body with hip prosthesis
Di Bona R., Catelani D., Ottaviano E., Gentile D., Testa G.
Q1
Multibody System Dynamics
,
2025
,
citations by CoLab: 0

Q1

Correction to: A new skeletal model for the ankle joint complex
Rodrigues da Silva M., Marques F., Tavares da Silva M., Flores P.
Q1
Multibody System Dynamics
,
2025
,
citations by CoLab: 0

Q1

A symplectic finite element method in time for periodic response of multibody systems
Wang H., Wang C., Wang G., Pan Y., Mikkola A., Peng H.
Q1
Multibody System Dynamics
,
2025
,
citations by CoLab: 0

Q1

Investigation of the dynamic transmission accuracy of an industrial robot joint RV reducer under variable situations
Xu L., Wu Y.
The dynamic transmission error of the joint RV (rotating vector) reducer is one of the important factors affecting the positioning accuracy of industrial robots. However, the current studies on the transmission accuracy characteristics of RV reducers are based on the equal speed driving condition, which neglects the impact of the transmission error generated by the joint RV reducer on the positioning accuracy when the robot is in the start-stop variable speed phase. This study carries out an in-depth analysis of the dynamic transmission accuracy characteristics of joint RV reducers of industrial robots under variable-speed working conditions. Two typical mathematical models of variable-speed drive laws are constructed, and a multibody dynamic model of the RV reducer that takes into account the geometric errors of typical components is established, aiming to more accurately simulate the operating state of the RV reducer under actual working conditions. To confirm the accuracy of the theoretical RV reducer contact dynamics model, the dynamic transmission error test of the RV reducer under equal-speed conditions is carried out. The results show that the dynamic model can better reflect the actual transmission characteristics of the RV reducer. Thereafter, based on the theoretical model, the effects of different driving laws on the dynamic transmission error of joint RV reducers are analyzed in depth. The results of the study show that the transmission error of the RV reducer under variable speed drive is significantly larger than that under equal speed drive. Moreover, angular acceleration and load inertia are the main factors affecting the transmission error of RV reducers for industrial robot joints.
Q1

Muscle path predictions using a discrete geodesic Euler–Lagrange model in constrained optimisation: comparison with OpenSim and experimental data
Lavaill M., Chen X., Heinrich S., Pivonka P., Leyendecker S.
Abstract
Accurate and robust modelling of muscle paths is crucial for predicting human movement. Traditional methods often rely on simplified straight-line representations and manual specifications of via-points and wrapping surfaces, which may lead to inconsistent and unrealistic muscle paths The discrete geodesic Euler–Lagrange (DGEL) method identifies geodesics with minimal curvature trajectories that adhere closely to anatomical constraints. Embedding DGEL into an optimisation problem with a specific objective function has the potential to identify muscle paths with smooth changes in muscle length over the course of the motion, thereby avoiding abrupt muscle discontinuities. This study aims to investigate the performance of the DGEL method. We developed multibody models with increasing complexity (i.e. a static arm model, a kinematic elbow model and a kinematic shoulder model) and investigated different scenarios, such as muscle attachment modifications, simulation of diverse motions and extreme ranges of motion. We performed a comparative analysis between the geodesic model and the open-source OpenSim framework, with validation against experimental data to assess physiological plausibility. Our findings reveal that the DGEL method overcomes limitations inherent in traditional approaches, including discontinuities and incorrect wrapping surface interactions. For the static arm model, the DGEL-computed muscle length showed a closer match to ground truth compared to OpenSim. In the elbow model, the DGEL method eliminated unphysiological muscle path discontinuities. In the shoulder model, the DGEL method was validated across three different motions against experimental muscle moment arms, achieving great accuracy and superior robustness in handling complex muscle paths. This method effectively addressed common pitfalls in muscle path modelling, such as bone penetrations and erratic trajectories. Future work will further validate the DGEL method across diverse real-world applications and optimise its performance through advanced objective functions. The DGEL approach represents a significant improvement in the accuracy and robustness of muscle path modelling, advancing the field of biomechanics and musculoskeletal modelling.
Q1

Dynamic responses of a vibro-impact capsule robot self-propelling in the large intestine via multibody dynamics
Wang Z., Tian J., Liu Y., Neves A., Prasad S.
Abstract
In recent years, colonic capsule endoscopy has become available in clinical practice as an alternative modality to colonoscopy. However, it faces challenges such as prolonged examination time and the absence of clinician navigation. Leveraging their pioneering work in the field of vibro-impact self-propulsion technique for gastrointestinal endoscopy, Zhang et al. (IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 8:1842–1849, 2023) developed a novel, untethered, self-propelled, endoscopic capsule robot, with the aim of providing a new means of examining bowel cancer in real time. To evaluate and optimize the passage of this capsule robot self-propelling in the large intestine, this work adopts multibody dynamics analysis and experimental investigation to study the robot’s dynamics and its interaction with the intestinal environment. Considering the complex anatomy of the large intestine, containing different sections, e.g., cecum, ascending, transverse, descending, and sigmoid colon, and variations of the haustra, e.g., with various radii, lengths, and heights, the robot was driven by the square-wave excitation of an inner mass interacting with the capsule body and tested on a real porcine colon. The robot’s driving parameters, including the excitation frequency, amplitude, and duty cycle, and the dimensions of the haustra are the two main factors influencing the robot’s progression in the intestine. By comparing with the experimental results, the proposed multibody dynamics model developed using MSC Adams can estimate the movement of the capsule robot and the intestinal resistance quantitatively. Extensive numerical and experimental studies suggest an excitation frequency of 60 Hz and a duty cycle of 0.4 as the optimal parameters for driving the robot, and the longer the haustral length is, the faster the robot passes through. These results ensure the validity of the proposed multibody dynamics platform, which can be used by robotic engineers for developing medical robots for intestinal examinations.
Q1

Fluid-conveying pipes in the floating frame of reference formulation
van Voorthuizen K., Abdul Rasheed M.I., Schilder J.
Abstract
This work presents a new formulation for flexible fluid-conveying pipe elements based on the widely used floating frame of reference formulation. The elements can be used as a tool for the analysis of flexible multibody systems that contain fluid-conveying pipes, as it is well known that the movement of the fluid can influence the behavior and stability of such systems. The pipe defines a control volume through which the fluid, which is considered to be a moving mass, axially flows. The velocity of a material point of the fluid is therefore a material derivative of its position, representing the large rigid movement and small elastic deformation of the pipe along with the velocity of the fluid with respect to the pipe. The equations of motion are derived through the principle of virtual work, spatial discretization by finite element interpolation functions, and model reduction. A simplification of the consistent equations of motion is proposed, which avoids the use of inertia shape integrals and reduces the effort required to implement the developed fluid-conveying pipe elements in existing multibody software. The developed elements are validated by simulation of a straight cantilevered pipe and a curved pipe constrained on one end by a hinge. A simulation of a concrete printing system illustrates the straightforward incorporation of the elements in larger multibody systems.
Q1

Dynamic modeling and simulation of the multi-point collision and contact problem of multi-legged robots
Ma X., Zhao S., An Y., Li K., Wang T.
The problem of multi-point collision and contact in multi-legged robots involves complex dynamics with multiple closed loops, variable topology, and numerous contact points, making simulations challenging. Additionally, Zeno behavior—characterized by an infinite number of discrete transitions within a finite time—is likely to occur, reducing computational efficiency and potentially causing simulations to stall. This paper establishes a linear complementary dynamic model to study the collision and contact problem of multi-legged mobile robots. For the uncertainty of multi-point collision and contact, we use sets and transformation matrices to represent the number and position changes of the points that collide or contact with the ground. This paper separately studies the problems of multi-point collision and multi-point continuous contact and considers the coupling effect of collision and continuous contact. A new criterion to determine the state of continuous contact is proposed, and modifications are made to the relevant linear complementary equations to prevent the Zeno behavior. Finally, several numerical examples are provided to verify the effectiveness of the method.
Q1

Vibration isolation performance and non-probabilistic reliability evaluation of multidimensional vibration isolator with interval joint clearance
Gao X., Niu J., He L., Wang Z., Qin Z., Wu H.
For suppressing multidimensional vibration effectively, the multidimensional vibration isolator based on parallel mechanism considering interval joint clearance is proposed. The kinematics and dynamics of the isolator are established respectively. The contact force generated due to interval joint clearance is modeled respectively by the Lankarani–Nikravesh (L-N) model and the modified Coulomb friction force model. Furthermore, the dynamics of the isolator with interval joint clearance are obtained by the first order interval perturbation method. The upper and lower bounds of vibration isolation performance are calculated, which indicates the isolator with interval joint clearance inhibited external vibration in time and frequency domain respectively. The vibration isolation performance is most sensitive in pitch (around $x$ ) direction due to the existence of interval joint clearance. The non-probabilistic reliability model of the isolator is proposed by the shortest distance method, and the non-probabilistic reliability index is investigated in each isolation direction with interval joint clearance. The reliability index of the isolator exhibits a quasi-stable area in horizontal (in $x$ ) and pitch (around $x$ ) directions, which implies the reliability index is not sensitive to joint clearance variation in a certain perturbation range. The proposed vibration isolator with interval joint clearance is fabricated, and the vibration isolation experiment is conducted. The experimental results are generally consistent with the theoretical results, which indicates the correctness of the analysis.
Q1

Using high fidelity discrete element simulation to calibrate an expeditious terramechanics model in a multibody dynamics framework
Zhang Y., Dai J., Hu W., Negrut D.
The wheel–soil interaction has great impact on the dynamics of off-road vehicles in terramechanics applications. The soil contact model (SCM), which anchors an empirical method to characterize the frictional contact between a wheel and soil, has been widely used in off-road vehicle dynamics simulations because it quickly produces adequate results for many terramechanics applications. The SCM approach calls for a set of model parameters that are obtained via a bevameter test. This test is expensive and time consuming to carry out, and in some cases difficult to set up, e.g., in extraterrestrial applications. We propose an approach to address these concerns by conducting the bevameter test in simulation, using a model that captures the physics of the actual experiment with high fidelity. To that end, we model the bevameter test rig as a multibody system, while the dynamics of the soil is captured using a discrete element model (DEM). The multibody dynamics–soil dynamics co-simulation is used to replicate the bevameter test, producing high fidelity ground truth test data that is subsequently used to calibrate the SCM parameters within a Bayesian inference framework. To test the accuracy of the resulting SCM terramechanics, we run single wheel and full rover simulations using both DEM and SCM terrains. The SCM results match well with those produced by the DEM solution, and the simulation time for SCM is two to three orders of magnitude lower than that of DEM. All simulations in this work are performed using Chrono, an open-source, publicly available simulator. The scripts and models used are available in a public repository for reproducibility studies and further research.
Q1

A machine learning approach to simulate flexible body dynamics
Slimak T., Zwölfer A., Todorov B., Rixen D.
Abstract
Flexible body dynamics simulations are powerful tools to realistically analyze vehicles, machines, mechanics, etc. However, the inherently nonlinear governing equations often require tailor-made and computationally expense solution strategies. Employing artificial neural networks for forward dynamics analyses of flexible bodies may be not only useful as a model reduction tool, since evaluating a network is frequently faster compared to solving physics-based models, but also to enhance models with experimental data. In this realm four primary strategies have emerged: (i) Incorporating time as an input to the artificial neural network to predict the desired solution variables at that specific time. (ii) Utilizing an entire time series as input, the network generates the corresponding time series of the desired solution variables in a single pass through the artificial neural network. (iii) Employing an artificial neural network to advance one time step into the future using the states as input. (iv) Leveraging the artificial neural network solely for learning the equations of motion or energetic quantities, e.g., Lagrangian/Hamiltonian, coupled with standard techniques from analytical dynamics and time integration. Approaches (iii) and (iv) can be considered advantageous owing to their inherent physics-informed nature, greater flexibility in adopting varying time steps, and ease of integration with classical simulation techniques. This contribution, therefore, presents a method to predict flexible body dynamics one step at a time using two complimentary artificial neural networks. One network predicts the equations of motion relationship between positions, velocities, and accelerations, while a second network or numerical integrator propagates the system states forwards in time. This work demonstrates the feasibility of the developed approach on the testcase of a flexible beam. Various parameter studies and alternative solutions are presented to highlight the performance of the developed approach. The robustness and ability to extrapolate are also explored to determine the practical viability of this solution. The intention of this single-body work is to enable the future embedding in a multibody context.
Q1

Embedding reference dynamics in model predictive control for trajectory tracking of multi-input multi-output non-minimum phase underactuated multibody systems
Bettega J., Richiedei D., Tamellin I.
This paper proposes a feedback control technique for path and trajectory tracking on multi-input, multi-output nonminimum phase underactuated multibody systems and applies it to a spatial gantry crane moving a double pendulum. The two links forming the double pendulum are connected in series and the desired output of the system is the tip of the second link. This output selection yields to a nonminimum phase system, which is a class of dynamical systems that are particularly challenging from the control design perspective. In this paper, an enhanced formulation of Model Predictive Control is proposed to solve the output trajectory tracking problem by embedding the dynamics of the spatial reference trajectory within the optimization process performed at each time step. The proposed control technique is formulated considering two different scenarios: the case of torque-controlled (i.e., current-controlled) actuators, and the case of position-controlled actuators. The latter is unusual in the field of MPC and is suitable for industrial applications where proprietary controllers are adopted. Numerical validations show negligible contour and tracking errors during the execution of the desired trajectories, with low computational effort.
Q1

Optimising a driving mechanism mechanical design of EXOTIC exoskeleton—a review on upper limb exoskeletons driving systems and a case study
Falkowski P., Mohammadi M., Andreasen Struijk L.N., Rzymkowski C., Pilat Z.
AbstractWhile designing rehabilitation exoskeletons is often realised based on experience and intuition, many processes can be computer-aided. This gives the opportunity to design lighter and more compact constructions. Hence, the devices can be fully wearable and have a wider range of motion. So far, mainly topology optimisation and parametric dimensional optimisations have been used for that. The presented study addresses the problem of automatic selection of the driving systems for exoskeletons. It consists of the literature review of the components used to actuate the joints of such constructions, optimisation algorithm development, and a case study on the EXOTIC exoskeleton. The method includes building a database of motors and gearboxes, computing inverse kinematics of a system to obtain angular trajectories from the task-oriented paths, iteration computing inverse dynamics to compute required torque and the search for the optimal solution according to the defined goal function. This approach enables single joint and multijoint optimisation, with the custom goal function minimising optionally masses, diameters or widths of the selected driving systems. The investigation consists of the 28 simulation trials for EXOTIC exoskeleton to compare results obtained for different aims. Moreover, to visualise the effect, the 1st DOF driving mechanism is redesigned to obtain its minimum width based on the optimisation results. The optimal choice reduced the actuation mechanism mass by 15.3%, while its total dimensions by 17.5%, 8.5% and 26.2%, respectively. The presented approach is easily transferable to any other active exoskeleton and can contribute to designing compact and lightweight constructions. This is particularly important in assistive rehabilitation and can also be used in industrial assistance processes.
Q1

Tailored gait-pattern generation and verification based on the dynamic analysis of the human musculoskeletal model
Shanmuga Prasad S., Kim Y.
This study presents a novel Forward Dynamic approach that integrates a Genetic Algorithm (GA) to generate and optimize gait patterns with Inverse Dynamics analysis, tailored to individual users in the robot-assisted training platform. The resulting trajectories provide gait-trajectory planning using the developed gait-pattern simulator, enabling medical personnel to select customized tasks and training trajectories for users based on their training goals, subsequently transferring user-specific parameters to the exoskeletal robot for rehabilitation/training. By leveraging biomechanical data as reference (joint torque and force) from the Inverse Dynamic analysis, the method foregoes the necessity for experimental data, directly predicting joint angles and positions. To ensure the validity of the proposed method, we used a combined approach of numerical analysis and comparison with motion-capture data. This evaluation aimed to assess how closely the simulated results resembled real human walking motion for the lower-extremity joints.
Q1

Multi-physics tribo-dynamics simulation of lubricated translational joints in marine engines
Li R., Li G., Meng X., Sun R., Cheng W.
Lubricated translational joints are extensively utilized in power equipment. Due to the presence of clearance, the moving mass exhibits transverse motion within the guide rail in addition to its reciprocating motion. This transverse motion significantly influences the friction, wear, and service life of the friction pair. In this process, multi-physics factors such as fluid lubrication, structural deformation, and frictional heat generation interact with each other, making the tribo-dynamics characteristics very complex. In the current study, a new thermal-fluid-solid coupled method for modeling the tribo-dynamics of translational lubricated joints is presented, and it is applied to the crosshead slider-guide friction pair in marine engines. Research results show that the tribo-dynamics characteristics of the slider predicted by the model is consistent with the experimental ones, the correctness of the model is verified. The frictional heat generation has little effect on the tribo-dynamics characteristics of the crosshead slider under the rated operating conditions. However, the structure deformation induced by the external load intensifies the transverse motion of the crosshead slider. Compared with the model that ignored the deformation, the transverse displacement can be increased by 30%, which indicates that it is necessary to consider the multi-physics coupling effect.
Top-100
Citing journals
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
|
|
Production and Operations Management
10677 citations, 9.66%
|
|
International Journal of Production Economics
5064 citations, 4.58%
|
|
European Journal of Operational Research
4748 citations, 4.3%
|
|
SSRN Electronic Journal
4702 citations, 4.25%
|
|
International Journal of Production Research
3893 citations, 3.52%
|
|
Transportation Research, Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review
2987 citations, 2.7%
|
|
Computers and Industrial Engineering
2413 citations, 2.18%
|
|
Manufacturing and Service Operations Management
2074 citations, 1.88%
|
|
Sustainability
1973 citations, 1.79%
|
|
Journal of Cleaner Production
1897 citations, 1.72%
|
|
Annals of Operations Research
1818 citations, 1.64%
|
|
International Journal of Operations and Production Management
1709 citations, 1.55%
|
|
Omega
1704 citations, 1.54%
|
|
Journal of Operations Management
1435 citations, 1.3%
|
|
Management Science
1419 citations, 1.28%
|
|
Decision Sciences
1220 citations, 1.1%
|
|
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management
1034 citations, 0.94%
|
|
International Transactions in Operational Research
807 citations, 0.73%
|
|
Naval Research Logistics
717 citations, 0.65%
|
|
Production Planning and Control
714 citations, 0.65%
|
|
Managerial and Decision Economics
681 citations, 0.62%
|
|
Operations Research
663 citations, 0.6%
|
|
Journal of the Operational Research Society
613 citations, 0.55%
|
|
RAIRO - Operations Research
545 citations, 0.49%
|
|
Supply Chain Management
530 citations, 0.48%
|
|
Industrial Management and Data Systems
461 citations, 0.42%
|
|
International Journal of Logistics Management
451 citations, 0.41%
|
|
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications
447 citations, 0.4%
|
|
Computers and Operations Research
442 citations, 0.4%
|
|
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management
431 citations, 0.39%
|
|
Journal of Business Research
393 citations, 0.36%
|
|
Journal of Business Logistics
392 citations, 0.35%
|
|
Expert Systems with Applications
369 citations, 0.33%
|
|
Mathematical Problems in Engineering
347 citations, 0.31%
|
|
Business Strategy and the Environment
345 citations, 0.31%
|
|
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management
343 citations, 0.31%
|
|
International Series in Operations Research and Management Science
339 citations, 0.31%
|
|
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services
337 citations, 0.3%
|
|
Kybernetes
330 citations, 0.3%
|
|
Information Systems Research
324 citations, 0.29%
|
|
IISE Transactions
321 citations, 0.29%
|
|
Benchmarking
317 citations, 0.29%
|
|
Mathematics
302 citations, 0.27%
|
|
Journal of Supply Chain Management
298 citations, 0.27%
|
|
Electronic Commerce Research
291 citations, 0.26%
|
|
International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications
288 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Decision Support Systems
264 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Technological Forecasting and Social Change
253 citations, 0.23%
|
|
Journal of Industrial and Management Optimization
251 citations, 0.23%
|
|
Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management
245 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management
240 citations, 0.22%
|
|
IEEE Access
235 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Operations Management Research
227 citations, 0.21%
|
|
International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management
222 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Industrial Marketing Management
218 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering
210 citations, 0.19%
|
|
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
208 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Procurement Analytics
208 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
189 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Total Quality Management and Business Excellence
188 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Health Care Management Science
186 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research
181 citations, 0.16%
|
|
PLoS ONE
181 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Applied Mathematical Modelling
177 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Operations Research Letters
175 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Outsourcing Management for Supply Chain Operations and Logistics Service
167 citations, 0.15%
|
|
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology
164 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Socio-Economic Planning Sciences
161 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Lecture Notes in Computer Science
160 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Service Science
155 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing
154 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management
148 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Systems
148 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society
146 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Information and Management
142 citations, 0.13%
|
|
IIE Transactions
142 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research
139 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal
136 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Transportation Research, Series B: Methodological
134 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Operations-Research-Spektrum
134 citations, 0.12%
|
|
INFORMS Journal on Computing
131 citations, 0.12%
|
|
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management
131 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Journal of Manufacturing Systems
127 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Operational Research
125 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
124 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Journal of Business Ethics
122 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Transportation Science
116 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Journal of Service Management
115 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Business Process Management Journal
114 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Applied Sciences (Switzerland)
113 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Complexity
107 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Soft Computing
106 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Quality Management Journal
105 citations, 0.1%
|
|
IFAC-PapersOnLine
100 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Journal of Enterprise Information Management
95 citations, 0.09%
|
|
INFOR
95 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Journal of Environmental Management
94 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Operations Research for Health Care
93 citations, 0.08%
|
|
Journal of Remanufacturing
92 citations, 0.08%
|
|
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction
91 citations, 0.08%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
|
Citing publishers
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
|
|
Elsevier
30617 citations, 27.7%
|
|
Wiley
16736 citations, 15.14%
|
|
Springer Nature
11042 citations, 9.99%
|
|
Taylor & Francis
9888 citations, 8.95%
|
|
Emerald
9157 citations, 8.29%
|
|
Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS)
5613 citations, 5.08%
|
|
Social Science Electronic Publishing
4476 citations, 4.05%
|
|
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
4465 citations, 4.04%
|
|
MDPI
4045 citations, 3.66%
|
|
SAGE
3488 citations, 3.16%
|
|
IGI Global
1588 citations, 1.44%
|
|
Hindawi Limited
982 citations, 0.89%
|
|
EDP Sciences
666 citations, 0.6%
|
|
World Scientific
436 citations, 0.39%
|
|
American Institute of Mathematical Sciences (AIMS)
371 citations, 0.34%
|
|
Frontiers Media S.A.
296 citations, 0.27%
|
|
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
276 citations, 0.25%
|
|
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
247 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Oxford University Press
184 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Cambridge University Press
147 citations, 0.13%
|
|
IOP Publishing
139 citations, 0.13%
|
|
University of Toronto Press Inc. (UTPress)
134 citations, 0.12%
|
|
IOS Press
127 citations, 0.11%
|
|
American Society for Quality
125 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Walter de Gruyter
111 citations, 0.1%
|
|
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
104 citations, 0.09%
|
|
INFORMS
101 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Universidade Federal de São Carlos
94 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Trans Tech Publications
93 citations, 0.08%
|
|
Scientific Research Publishing
86 citations, 0.08%
|
|
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
73 citations, 0.07%
|
|
SciELO
70 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Associacao Brasileira de Engenharia de Producao - ABEPRO
66 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Academy of Management
63 citations, 0.06%
|
|
ASME International
62 citations, 0.06%
|
|
American Society of Transportation and Logistics
58 citations, 0.05%
|
|
AIP Publishing
57 citations, 0.05%
|
|
American Accounting Association
55 citations, 0.05%
|
|
JMIR Publications
51 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Hans Publishers
50 citations, 0.05%
|
|
AOSIS
46 citations, 0.04%
|
|
American Psychological Association (APA)
40 citations, 0.04%
|
|
American Marketing Association
38 citations, 0.03%
|
|
IntechOpen
38 citations, 0.03%
|
|
American Chemical Society (ACS)
32 citations, 0.03%
|
|
CAIRN
31 citations, 0.03%
|
|
LLC CPC Business Perspectives
29 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Fundacao Getulio Vargas, Escola de Administracao de Empresas de Sao Paulo
29 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM)
27 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Inderscience Publishers
26 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Science Alert
24 citations, 0.02%
|
|
23 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Journal of Systems Science and Information (JSSI)
23 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Bundesvereinigung Logistik (BVL)
22 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
21 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
21 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Centre for Evaluation in Education and Science (CEON/CEES)
20 citations, 0.02%
|
|
National Cheng Kung University
19 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Research Square Platform LLC
19 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Vilnius Gediminas Technical University
18 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET)
17 citations, 0.02%
|
|
BMJ
17 citations, 0.02%
|
|
World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society (WSEAS)
17 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Mary Ann Liebert
16 citations, 0.01%
|
|
16 citations, 0.01%
|
|
EJournal Publishing
15 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Virtus Interpress
15 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Institute of Mathematical Statistics
14 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Mackenzie Presbyterian University
14 citations, 0.01%
|
|
F1000 Research
14 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Center for Strategic Studies in Business and Finance SSBFNET
13 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Science in China Press
12 citations, 0.01%
|
|
PeerJ
11 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Brazilian Administration Review
11 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Annual Reviews
11 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.
10 citations, 0.01%
|
|
10 citations, 0.01%
|
|
OpenEdition
10 citations, 0.01%
|
|
South Florida Publishing LLC
10 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Tsinghua University Press
9 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Tech Science Press
9 citations, 0.01%
|
|
The Royal Society
8 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Korean Institute of Industrial Engineers
8 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Operations Research Society of Japan
8 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Cornell University Press
8 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Shanghai Jiaotong University Press
8 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Academic Journals
8 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Thomas Telford
8 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)
7 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Universidad Nacional de Colombia
7 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Wageningen Academic Publishers
7 citations, 0.01%
|
|
The Korean Society of Precision Engineering
7 citations, 0.01%
|
|
OAE Publishing Inc.
7 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)
6 citations, 0.01%
|
|
University of Chicago Press
6 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Fuji Technology Press
6 citations, 0.01%
|
|
College Publications
6 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Centro de Ciencias Aplicadas y Desarrollo Tecnologico, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico
6 citations, 0.01%
|
|
American Economic Association
6 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Fakulteta za Organizacijske Vede, Univerza v Mariboru
6 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
|
Publishing organizations
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
|
|
University of Texas at Dallas
158 publications, 4.8%
|
|
Georgia Institute of technology
103 publications, 3.13%
|
|
University of California, Los Angeles
95 publications, 2.88%
|
|
University of Florida
91 publications, 2.76%
|
|
University of Texas at Austin
87 publications, 2.64%
|
|
Purdue University
81 publications, 2.46%
|
|
Hong Kong Polytechnic University
80 publications, 2.43%
|
|
Indiana University Bloomington
78 publications, 2.37%
|
|
Pennsylvania State University
75 publications, 2.28%
|
|
Texas A&M University
73 publications, 2.22%
|
|
Ohio State University
72 publications, 2.19%
|
|
University of Minnesota
72 publications, 2.19%
|
|
City University of Hong Kong
69 publications, 2.1%
|
|
University of Michigan
67 publications, 2.03%
|
|
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
65 publications, 1.97%
|
|
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
65 publications, 1.97%
|
|
Tsinghua University
60 publications, 1.82%
|
|
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
60 publications, 1.82%
|
|
Washington University in St. Louis
60 publications, 1.82%
|
|
Chinese University of Hong Kong
60 publications, 1.82%
|
|
University of Science and Technology of China
59 publications, 1.79%
|
|
Arizona State University
58 publications, 1.76%
|
|
Cornell University
53 publications, 1.61%
|
|
University of California, Berkeley
53 publications, 1.61%
|
|
Erasmus University Rotterdam
53 publications, 1.61%
|
|
Michigan State University
52 publications, 1.58%
|
|
Fudan University
51 publications, 1.55%
|
|
University of Houston
50 publications, 1.52%
|
|
Temple University
49 publications, 1.49%
|
|
University of Washington
47 publications, 1.43%
|
|
McGill University
47 publications, 1.43%
|
|
Harvard University
43 publications, 1.31%
|
|
University of Maryland, College Park
43 publications, 1.31%
|
|
Columbia University
42 publications, 1.28%
|
|
Tulane University
41 publications, 1.25%
|
|
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
40 publications, 1.21%
|
|
University of Pennsylvania
40 publications, 1.21%
|
|
Western University
39 publications, 1.18%
|
|
National University of Singapore
38 publications, 1.15%
|
|
University of Toronto
38 publications, 1.15%
|
|
New York University
36 publications, 1.09%
|
|
University of Miami
35 publications, 1.06%
|
|
Stanford University
33 publications, 1%
|
|
University of Notre Dame
33 publications, 1%
|
|
Shanghai Jiao Tong University
31 publications, 0.94%
|
|
University of Southern California
31 publications, 0.94%
|
|
Northwestern University
31 publications, 0.94%
|
|
University of Hong Kong
31 publications, 0.94%
|
|
Emory University
31 publications, 0.94%
|
|
Clemson University
30 publications, 0.91%
|
|
Northeastern University
30 publications, 0.91%
|
|
Shanghai University of Finance and Economics
29 publications, 0.88%
|
|
University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee
28 publications, 0.85%
|
|
University of Wisconsin–Madison
28 publications, 0.85%
|
|
University of British Columbia
27 publications, 0.82%
|
|
Dartmouth College
27 publications, 0.82%
|
|
University of Tennessee
27 publications, 0.82%
|
|
Zhejiang University
25 publications, 0.76%
|
|
Boston University
25 publications, 0.76%
|
|
University of California, Riverside
25 publications, 0.76%
|
|
Georgia State University
25 publications, 0.76%
|
|
Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen
24 publications, 0.73%
|
|
Carnegie Mellon University
24 publications, 0.73%
|
|
Georgetown University
24 publications, 0.73%
|
|
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
24 publications, 0.73%
|
|
Kühne Logistics University
24 publications, 0.73%
|
|
University of Connecticut
24 publications, 0.73%
|
|
Sun Yat-sen University
23 publications, 0.7%
|
|
Syracuse University
23 publications, 0.7%
|
|
Boston College
21 publications, 0.64%
|
|
Eindhoven University of Technology
20 publications, 0.61%
|
|
University of Cambridge
20 publications, 0.61%
|
|
City, University of London
20 publications, 0.61%
|
|
George Washington University
20 publications, 0.61%
|
|
North Carolina State University
20 publications, 0.61%
|
|
Vanderbilt University
20 publications, 0.61%
|
|
William & Mary
20 publications, 0.61%
|
|
Technical University of Munich
19 publications, 0.58%
|
|
University of Cincinnati
19 publications, 0.58%
|
|
South China University of Technology
18 publications, 0.55%
|
|
Florida International University
18 publications, 0.55%
|
|
University of Colorado Boulder
18 publications, 0.55%
|
|
University of Utah
18 publications, 0.55%
|
|
Huazhong University of Science and Technology
17 publications, 0.52%
|
|
George Mason University
17 publications, 0.52%
|
|
University of South Florida
17 publications, 0.52%
|
|
University of Cologne
17 publications, 0.52%
|
|
York University
17 publications, 0.52%
|
|
Nanyang Technological University
16 publications, 0.49%
|
|
University of Kassel
16 publications, 0.49%
|
|
Lehigh University
16 publications, 0.49%
|
|
Southern University of Science and Technology
15 publications, 0.46%
|
|
National Taiwan University
15 publications, 0.46%
|
|
Johns Hopkins University
15 publications, 0.46%
|
|
Lingnan University
15 publications, 0.46%
|
|
Queen's University at Kingston
15 publications, 0.46%
|
|
Texas Christian University
15 publications, 0.46%
|
|
University College London
14 publications, 0.43%
|
|
Southwestern University of Finance and Economics
14 publications, 0.43%
|
|
Iowa State University
14 publications, 0.43%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
|
Publishing organizations in 5 years
10
20
30
40
50
60
|
|
University of Texas at Dallas
56 publications, 4.69%
|
|
University of Florida
53 publications, 4.44%
|
|
University of Houston
45 publications, 3.77%
|
|
Hong Kong Polytechnic University
44 publications, 3.69%
|
|
University of California, Los Angeles
43 publications, 3.6%
|
|
University of Texas at Austin
42 publications, 3.52%
|
|
Temple University
41 publications, 3.43%
|
|
University of Science and Technology of China
36 publications, 3.02%
|
|
Tsinghua University
35 publications, 2.93%
|
|
Purdue University
34 publications, 2.85%
|
|
City University of Hong Kong
33 publications, 2.76%
|
|
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
31 publications, 2.6%
|
|
Arizona State University
30 publications, 2.51%
|
|
Ohio State University
30 publications, 2.51%
|
|
Fudan University
29 publications, 2.43%
|
|
McGill University
27 publications, 2.26%
|
|
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
25 publications, 2.09%
|
|
Chinese University of Hong Kong
25 publications, 2.09%
|
|
University of Hong Kong
24 publications, 2.01%
|
|
Erasmus University Rotterdam
24 publications, 2.01%
|
|
Indiana University Bloomington
24 publications, 2.01%
|
|
Pennsylvania State University
23 publications, 1.93%
|
|
University of Washington
23 publications, 1.93%
|
|
Texas A&M University
23 publications, 1.93%
|
|
National University of Singapore
22 publications, 1.84%
|
|
Michigan State University
22 publications, 1.84%
|
|
University of Minnesota
22 publications, 1.84%
|
|
University of Toronto
22 publications, 1.84%
|
|
Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen
20 publications, 1.68%
|
|
Western University
20 publications, 1.68%
|
|
University of Tennessee
20 publications, 1.68%
|
|
Shanghai Jiao Tong University
19 publications, 1.59%
|
|
Washington University in St. Louis
19 publications, 1.59%
|
|
Georgia Institute of technology
18 publications, 1.51%
|
|
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
18 publications, 1.51%
|
|
Shanghai University of Finance and Economics
17 publications, 1.42%
|
|
University of Michigan
17 publications, 1.42%
|
|
University of Kassel
16 publications, 1.34%
|
|
University of Miami
16 publications, 1.34%
|
|
Zhejiang University
15 publications, 1.26%
|
|
Cornell University
15 publications, 1.26%
|
|
Tulane University
15 publications, 1.26%
|
|
Sun Yat-sen University
14 publications, 1.17%
|
|
Southern University of Science and Technology
14 publications, 1.17%
|
|
University of California, Berkeley
14 publications, 1.17%
|
|
Dartmouth College
14 publications, 1.17%
|
|
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
14 publications, 1.17%
|
|
Northwestern University
13 publications, 1.09%
|
|
University of South Florida
13 publications, 1.09%
|
|
Kühne Logistics University
13 publications, 1.09%
|
|
Emory University
13 publications, 1.09%
|
|
Technical University of Munich
12 publications, 1.01%
|
|
University of Manchester
12 publications, 1.01%
|
|
University of Connecticut
12 publications, 1.01%
|
|
Tongji University
11 publications, 0.92%
|
|
City, University of London
11 publications, 0.92%
|
|
National Taiwan University
11 publications, 0.92%
|
|
Dongbei University of Finance and Economics
11 publications, 0.92%
|
|
George Washington University
11 publications, 0.92%
|
|
Syracuse University
11 publications, 0.92%
|
|
New York University
11 publications, 0.92%
|
|
University of British Columbia
11 publications, 0.92%
|
|
University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee
11 publications, 0.92%
|
|
South China University of Technology
10 publications, 0.84%
|
|
Xi'an Jiaotong University
10 publications, 0.84%
|
|
Columbia University
10 publications, 0.84%
|
|
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
10 publications, 0.84%
|
|
University of California, Irvine
10 publications, 0.84%
|
|
Northeastern University
10 publications, 0.84%
|
|
University of Notre Dame
10 publications, 0.84%
|
|
Georgia State University
10 publications, 0.84%
|
|
University of Maryland, College Park
10 publications, 0.84%
|
|
Florida International University
10 publications, 0.84%
|
|
Boston University
9 publications, 0.75%
|
|
North Carolina State University
9 publications, 0.75%
|
|
University of California, Riverside
9 publications, 0.75%
|
|
Lehigh University
9 publications, 0.75%
|
|
University of Pennsylvania
9 publications, 0.75%
|
|
University of Alabama
9 publications, 0.75%
|
|
Beijing Institute of Technology
8 publications, 0.67%
|
|
Peking University
8 publications, 0.67%
|
|
Eindhoven University of Technology
8 publications, 0.67%
|
|
Xiamen University
8 publications, 0.67%
|
|
University of Melbourne
8 publications, 0.67%
|
|
Georgetown University
8 publications, 0.67%
|
|
Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology
8 publications, 0.67%
|
|
Virginia Tech
8 publications, 0.67%
|
|
University of Cologne
8 publications, 0.67%
|
|
University of Wisconsin–Madison
8 publications, 0.67%
|
|
York University
8 publications, 0.67%
|
|
Texas Christian University
8 publications, 0.67%
|
|
University of Nebraska–Lincoln
8 publications, 0.67%
|
|
Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad
7 publications, 0.59%
|
|
Nanjing University
7 publications, 0.59%
|
|
Shenzhen University
7 publications, 0.59%
|
|
Nanyang Technological University
7 publications, 0.59%
|
|
Tianjin University
7 publications, 0.59%
|
|
Shanghai University
7 publications, 0.59%
|
|
Southwestern University of Finance and Economics
7 publications, 0.59%
|
|
Carnegie Mellon University
7 publications, 0.59%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
10
20
30
40
50
60
|
Publishing countries
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
|
|
USA
|
USA, 2205, 66.96%
USA
2205 publications, 66.96%
|
China
|
China, 645, 19.59%
China
645 publications, 19.59%
|
Canada
|
Canada, 254, 7.71%
Canada
254 publications, 7.71%
|
United Kingdom
|
United Kingdom, 166, 5.04%
United Kingdom
166 publications, 5.04%
|
France
|
France, 121, 3.67%
France
121 publications, 3.67%
|
Germany
|
Germany, 118, 3.58%
Germany
118 publications, 3.58%
|
Netherlands
|
Netherlands, 100, 3.04%
Netherlands
100 publications, 3.04%
|
Singapore
|
Singapore, 99, 3.01%
Singapore
99 publications, 3.01%
|
India
|
India, 67, 2.03%
India
67 publications, 2.03%
|
Turkey
|
Turkey, 49, 1.49%
Turkey
49 publications, 1.49%
|
Republic of Korea
|
Republic of Korea, 43, 1.31%
Republic of Korea
43 publications, 1.31%
|
Australia
|
Australia, 34, 1.03%
Australia
34 publications, 1.03%
|
Spain
|
Spain, 33, 1%
Spain
33 publications, 1%
|
Israel
|
Israel, 22, 0.67%
Israel
22 publications, 0.67%
|
Switzerland
|
Switzerland, 20, 0.61%
Switzerland
20 publications, 0.61%
|
Greece
|
Greece, 16, 0.49%
Greece
16 publications, 0.49%
|
Austria
|
Austria, 12, 0.36%
Austria
12 publications, 0.36%
|
Sweden
|
Sweden, 12, 0.36%
Sweden
12 publications, 0.36%
|
Belgium
|
Belgium, 11, 0.33%
Belgium
11 publications, 0.33%
|
New Zealand
|
New Zealand, 10, 0.3%
New Zealand
10 publications, 0.3%
|
Norway
|
Norway, 10, 0.3%
Norway
10 publications, 0.3%
|
Brazil
|
Brazil, 9, 0.27%
Brazil
9 publications, 0.27%
|
Italy
|
Italy, 9, 0.27%
Italy
9 publications, 0.27%
|
Chile
|
Chile, 8, 0.24%
Chile
8 publications, 0.24%
|
Portugal
|
Portugal, 7, 0.21%
Portugal
7 publications, 0.21%
|
Ireland
|
Ireland, 7, 0.21%
Ireland
7 publications, 0.21%
|
Cyprus
|
Cyprus, 6, 0.18%
Cyprus
6 publications, 0.18%
|
Finland
|
Finland, 6, 0.18%
Finland
6 publications, 0.18%
|
Japan
|
Japan, 6, 0.18%
Japan
6 publications, 0.18%
|
UAE
|
UAE, 4, 0.12%
UAE
4 publications, 0.12%
|
Kazakhstan
|
Kazakhstan, 3, 0.09%
Kazakhstan
3 publications, 0.09%
|
Argentina
|
Argentina, 3, 0.09%
Argentina
3 publications, 0.09%
|
Denmark
|
Denmark, 3, 0.09%
Denmark
3 publications, 0.09%
|
Kenya
|
Kenya, 3, 0.09%
Kenya
3 publications, 0.09%
|
Luxembourg
|
Luxembourg, 3, 0.09%
Luxembourg
3 publications, 0.09%
|
Malaysia
|
Malaysia, 3, 0.09%
Malaysia
3 publications, 0.09%
|
Thailand
|
Thailand, 3, 0.09%
Thailand
3 publications, 0.09%
|
Iran
|
Iran, 2, 0.06%
Iran
2 publications, 0.06%
|
Mexico
|
Mexico, 2, 0.06%
Mexico
2 publications, 0.06%
|
Pakistan
|
Pakistan, 2, 0.06%
Pakistan
2 publications, 0.06%
|
Saudi Arabia
|
Saudi Arabia, 2, 0.06%
Saudi Arabia
2 publications, 0.06%
|
Tunisia
|
Tunisia, 2, 0.06%
Tunisia
2 publications, 0.06%
|
South Africa
|
South Africa, 2, 0.06%
South Africa
2 publications, 0.06%
|
Russia
|
Russia, 1, 0.03%
Russia
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Hungary
|
Hungary, 1, 0.03%
Hungary
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Iceland
|
Iceland, 1, 0.03%
Iceland
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Costa Rica
|
Costa Rica, 1, 0.03%
Costa Rica
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Morocco
|
Morocco, 1, 0.03%
Morocco
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Poland
|
Poland, 1, 0.03%
Poland
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Romania
|
Romania, 1, 0.03%
Romania
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Slovakia
|
Slovakia, 1, 0.03%
Slovakia
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Show all (21 more) | |
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
|
Publishing countries in 5 years
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
|
|
USA
|
USA, 786, 65.83%
USA
786 publications, 65.83%
|
China
|
China, 364, 30.49%
China
364 publications, 30.49%
|
Canada
|
Canada, 120, 10.05%
Canada
120 publications, 10.05%
|
United Kingdom
|
United Kingdom, 92, 7.71%
United Kingdom
92 publications, 7.71%
|
Germany
|
Germany, 63, 5.28%
Germany
63 publications, 5.28%
|
France
|
France, 55, 4.61%
France
55 publications, 4.61%
|
Singapore
|
Singapore, 45, 3.77%
Singapore
45 publications, 3.77%
|
Netherlands
|
Netherlands, 44, 3.69%
Netherlands
44 publications, 3.69%
|
India
|
India, 38, 3.18%
India
38 publications, 3.18%
|
Australia
|
Australia, 23, 1.93%
Australia
23 publications, 1.93%
|
Republic of Korea
|
Republic of Korea, 18, 1.51%
Republic of Korea
18 publications, 1.51%
|
Spain
|
Spain, 13, 1.09%
Spain
13 publications, 1.09%
|
Turkey
|
Turkey, 13, 1.09%
Turkey
13 publications, 1.09%
|
Switzerland
|
Switzerland, 11, 0.92%
Switzerland
11 publications, 0.92%
|
Italy
|
Italy, 8, 0.67%
Italy
8 publications, 0.67%
|
Austria
|
Austria, 7, 0.59%
Austria
7 publications, 0.59%
|
Greece
|
Greece, 7, 0.59%
Greece
7 publications, 0.59%
|
New Zealand
|
New Zealand, 6, 0.5%
New Zealand
6 publications, 0.5%
|
Israel
|
Israel, 5, 0.42%
Israel
5 publications, 0.42%
|
Norway
|
Norway, 5, 0.42%
Norway
5 publications, 0.42%
|
UAE
|
UAE, 4, 0.34%
UAE
4 publications, 0.34%
|
Finland
|
Finland, 4, 0.34%
Finland
4 publications, 0.34%
|
Sweden
|
Sweden, 4, 0.34%
Sweden
4 publications, 0.34%
|
Portugal
|
Portugal, 3, 0.25%
Portugal
3 publications, 0.25%
|
Belgium
|
Belgium, 3, 0.25%
Belgium
3 publications, 0.25%
|
Denmark
|
Denmark, 3, 0.25%
Denmark
3 publications, 0.25%
|
Chile
|
Chile, 3, 0.25%
Chile
3 publications, 0.25%
|
Japan
|
Japan, 3, 0.25%
Japan
3 publications, 0.25%
|
Kazakhstan
|
Kazakhstan, 2, 0.17%
Kazakhstan
2 publications, 0.17%
|
Brazil
|
Brazil, 2, 0.17%
Brazil
2 publications, 0.17%
|
Luxembourg
|
Luxembourg, 2, 0.17%
Luxembourg
2 publications, 0.17%
|
Saudi Arabia
|
Saudi Arabia, 2, 0.17%
Saudi Arabia
2 publications, 0.17%
|
South Africa
|
South Africa, 2, 0.17%
South Africa
2 publications, 0.17%
|
Ireland
|
Ireland, 1, 0.08%
Ireland
1 publication, 0.08%
|
Kenya
|
Kenya, 1, 0.08%
Kenya
1 publication, 0.08%
|
Malaysia
|
Malaysia, 1, 0.08%
Malaysia
1 publication, 0.08%
|
Morocco
|
Morocco, 1, 0.08%
Morocco
1 publication, 0.08%
|
Slovakia
|
Slovakia, 1, 0.08%
Slovakia
1 publication, 0.08%
|
Tunisia
|
Tunisia, 1, 0.08%
Tunisia
1 publication, 0.08%
|
Show all (9 more) | |
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
|
1 profile journal article
Saldanha John
21 publications,
341 citations
h-index: 10