Journal of Social and Personal Relationships
Are you a researcher?
Create a profile to get free access to personal recommendations for colleagues and new articles.
SCImago
Q1
WOS
Q2
Impact factor
2.3
SJR
1.022
CiteScore
4.3
Categories
Communication
Social Psychology
Sociology and Political Science
Developmental and Educational Psychology
Areas
Psychology
Social Sciences
Years of issue
1984-2025
journal names
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships
J SOC PERS RELAT
Top-3 citing journals

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships
(4915 citations)

Personal Relationships
(2368 citations)

Frontiers in Psychology
(1190 citations)
Top-3 organizations

Pennsylvania State University
(80 publications)

Arizona State University
(77 publications)

University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
(69 publications)

Arizona State University
(31 publications)

Pennsylvania State University
(27 publications)

University of Toronto
(23 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
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
|
|
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships
4915 citations, 6.07%
|
|
Personal Relationships
2368 citations, 2.92%
|
|
Frontiers in Psychology
1190 citations, 1.47%
|
|
Personality and Individual Differences
787 citations, 0.97%
|
|
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
778 citations, 0.96%
|
|
Journal of Family Communication
657 citations, 0.81%
|
|
Archives of Sexual Behavior
633 citations, 0.78%
|
|
Current Psychology
628 citations, 0.78%
|
|
Communication Quarterly
595 citations, 0.73%
|
|
Journal of Sex Research
564 citations, 0.7%
|
|
Computers in Human Behavior
557 citations, 0.69%
|
|
Journal of Family Issues
537 citations, 0.66%
|
|
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
500 citations, 0.62%
|
|
Communication Monographs
489 citations, 0.6%
|
|
Western Journal of Communication
484 citations, 0.6%
|
|
Communication Studies
474 citations, 0.59%
|
|
PLoS ONE
462 citations, 0.57%
|
|
Communication Research
441 citations, 0.54%
|
|
Family Relations
440 citations, 0.54%
|
|
Journal of Marriage and Family
422 citations, 0.52%
|
|
Health Communication
416 citations, 0.51%
|
|
Sex Roles
392 citations, 0.48%
|
|
Human Communication Research
384 citations, 0.47%
|
|
Family Process
376 citations, 0.46%
|
|
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
341 citations, 0.42%
|
|
Journal of Youth and Adolescence
336 citations, 0.41%
|
|
Journal of Child and Family Studies
321 citations, 0.4%
|
|
Psychological Reports
320 citations, 0.39%
|
|
Journal of Family Theory and Review
306 citations, 0.38%
|
|
Communication Research Reports
290 citations, 0.36%
|
|
Journal of Research in Personality
289 citations, 0.36%
|
|
The Southern Communication Journal
260 citations, 0.32%
|
|
Journal of Adolescence
260 citations, 0.32%
|
|
Sexuality and Culture
254 citations, 0.31%
|
|
Journal of Marital and Family Therapy
250 citations, 0.31%
|
|
Marriage and Family Review
249 citations, 0.31%
|
|
Journals of Gerontology - Series B Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences
240 citations, 0.3%
|
|
Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy
234 citations, 0.29%
|
|
Family Journal
224 citations, 0.28%
|
|
Journal of Divorce and Remarriage
222 citations, 0.27%
|
|
Social Psychological and Personality Science
222 citations, 0.27%
|
|
Social and Personality Psychology Compass
221 citations, 0.27%
|
|
Communication Reports
212 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Journal of Social Psychology
211 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Current Opinion in Psychology
206 citations, 0.25%
|
|
Journal of Happiness Studies
199 citations, 0.25%
|
|
Journal of Personality
195 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Social Science and Medicine
194 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Emerging Adulthood
187 citations, 0.23%
|
|
Child Development
186 citations, 0.23%
|
|
Personality and Social Psychology Review
184 citations, 0.23%
|
|
SSRN Electronic Journal
184 citations, 0.23%
|
|
Journal of Research on Adolescence
182 citations, 0.22%
|
|
European Journal of Social Psychology
182 citations, 0.22%
|
|
International Journal of Behavioral Development
180 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Journal of Relationships Research
175 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Sexual and Relationship Therapy
170 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
169 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Social Development
167 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Journal of Applied Communication Research
164 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology
159 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Children and Youth Services Review
152 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
149 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Journal of Family Violence
147 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Attachment and Human Development
147 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Evolutionary Psychology
146 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking
145 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Journal of Affective Disorders
145 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Behavioral Sciences
141 citations, 0.17%
|
|
European Journal of Personality
134 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Aging and Mental Health
129 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Journal of Health Psychology
122 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Contemporary Family Therapy
122 citations, 0.15%
|
|
International Journal of Aging and Human Development
121 citations, 0.15%
|
|
International Journal of Intercultural Relations
119 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Journal of Applied Social Psychology
119 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Scientific Reports
114 citations, 0.14%
|
|
BMC Public Health
114 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy
112 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Journal of Early Adolescence
112 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Journal of Adult Development
109 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Journal of Business Research
108 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Journal of Communication
107 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders
105 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Social Networks
105 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Journal of Homosexuality
103 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Interpersona
102 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Psychology of Women Quarterly
99 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Child Abuse and Neglect
99 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Journal of Sexual Medicine
96 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Research on Aging
95 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Frontiers in Psychiatry
95 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Perspectives on Psychological Science
94 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Clinical Psychology Review
94 citations, 0.12%
|
|
BMC psychology
94 citations, 0.12%
|
|
The American Journal of Family Therapy
92 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Journal of GLBT Family Studies
91 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied
90 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Journal of Family Psychology
89 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Journal of Aging and Health
88 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
|
Citing publishers
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
|
|
Taylor & Francis
14827 citations, 18.3%
|
|
SAGE
13730 citations, 16.95%
|
|
Wiley
12085 citations, 14.92%
|
|
Springer Nature
8934 citations, 11.03%
|
|
Elsevier
8522 citations, 10.52%
|
|
Cambridge University Press
3153 citations, 3.89%
|
|
Frontiers Media S.A.
1684 citations, 2.08%
|
|
MDPI
1400 citations, 1.73%
|
|
Emerald
1108 citations, 1.37%
|
|
Oxford University Press
853 citations, 1.05%
|
|
American Psychological Association (APA)
697 citations, 0.86%
|
|
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
526 citations, 0.65%
|
|
Hogrefe Publishing Group
384 citations, 0.47%
|
|
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
372 citations, 0.46%
|
|
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
348 citations, 0.43%
|
|
Guilford Publications
338 citations, 0.42%
|
|
IGI Global
321 citations, 0.4%
|
|
Mary Ann Liebert
295 citations, 0.36%
|
|
Social Science Electronic Publishing
219 citations, 0.27%
|
|
JMIR Publications
211 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
181 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Annual Reviews
138 citations, 0.17%
|
|
University of Toronto Press Inc. (UTPress)
120 citations, 0.15%
|
|
BMJ
118 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Springer Publishing Company
117 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Walter de Gruyter
111 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Academy of Management
100 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Scientific Research Publishing
96 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Leibniz Institute for Psychology (ZPID)
93 citations, 0.11%
|
|
CAIRN
90 citations, 0.11%
|
|
88 citations, 0.11%
|
|
86 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Hans Publishers
85 citations, 0.1%
|
|
76 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Hindawi Limited
72 citations, 0.09%
|
|
John Benjamins Publishing Company
68 citations, 0.08%
|
|
Consortium Erudit
68 citations, 0.08%
|
|
SciELO
61 citations, 0.08%
|
|
University of Chicago Press
59 citations, 0.07%
|
|
Europe's Journal of Psychology
57 citations, 0.07%
|
|
Biola University
55 citations, 0.07%
|
|
S. Karger AG
54 citations, 0.07%
|
|
Society for Personality Research
53 citations, 0.07%
|
|
Akademiai Kiado
52 citations, 0.06%
|
|
The Royal Society
51 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
51 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS)
48 citations, 0.06%
|
|
China Science Publishing & Media
45 citations, 0.06%
|
|
43 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Research Square Platform LLC
41 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)
40 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Human Kinetics
40 citations, 0.05%
|
|
OpenEdition
39 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Moscow State University of Psychology and Education
37 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.
35 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
33 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Brill
32 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Japan Society of Personality Psychology
32 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Japanese Group Dynamics Association
30 citations, 0.04%
|
|
University of California Press
28 citations, 0.03%
|
|
SLACK
28 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Masaryk University Press
27 citations, 0.03%
|
|
National Recreation and Park Association
26 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Royal College of Psychiatrists
25 citations, 0.03%
|
|
American Marketing Association
24 citations, 0.03%
|
|
American Speech Language Hearing Association
24 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Korean Counseling Association
24 citations, 0.03%
|
|
IntechOpen
23 citations, 0.03%
|
|
IOS Press
22 citations, 0.03%
|
|
University of Illinois Press
22 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Bristol University Press
22 citations, 0.03%
|
|
The Japanese Psychological Association
22 citations, 0.03%
|
|
European Society of Traumatic Stress Studies (ESTSS)
21 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Mark Allen Group
20 citations, 0.02%
|
|
American Medical Association (AMA)
19 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Centre for Evaluation in Education and Science (CEON/CEES)
19 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Ubiquity Press
19 citations, 0.02%
|
|
F1000 Research
19 citations, 0.02%
|
|
EDP Sciences
18 citations, 0.02%
|
|
American Academy of Pediatrics
18 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Departamento de Psicologia, Universidade de Brasilia
18 citations, 0.02%
|
|
AOSIS
18 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Max-Planck Institute for Demographic Research/Max-Planck-institut fur Demografische Forschung
17 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Termedia Sp. z.o.o.
17 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Men's Studies Press, LLC
16 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Universidade Sao Francisco
15 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Johann Ambrosius Barth
15 citations, 0.02%
|
|
PeerJ
14 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Psychologia Society
14 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Sociedade Brasileira de Psicologia
14 citations, 0.02%
|
|
CSIRO Publishing
14 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Society for Sociological Science
13 citations, 0.02%
|
|
American Public Health Association
13 citations, 0.02%
|
|
PAGEPress Publications
13 citations, 0.02%
|
|
11 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Medknow
11 citations, 0.01%
|
|
National Library of Serbia
11 citations, 0.01%
|
|
American Psychiatric Association Publishing
11 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Colegio Oficial de la Psicologia de Madrid
11 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Cornell University Press
10 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
|
Publishing organizations
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
|
|
Pennsylvania State University
80 publications, 2.75%
|
|
Arizona State University
77 publications, 2.64%
|
|
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
69 publications, 2.37%
|
|
University of Arizona
64 publications, 2.2%
|
|
University of Texas at Austin
53 publications, 1.82%
|
|
Purdue University
53 publications, 1.82%
|
|
University of Michigan
52 publications, 1.79%
|
|
University of Toronto
50 publications, 1.72%
|
|
University of Washington
48 publications, 1.65%
|
|
Ohio State University
43 publications, 1.48%
|
|
Brigham Young University
40 publications, 1.37%
|
|
University of Minnesota
36 publications, 1.24%
|
|
Illinois State University
35 publications, 1.2%
|
|
Michigan State University
32 publications, 1.1%
|
|
University of Utah
32 publications, 1.1%
|
|
University of Haifa
30 publications, 1.03%
|
|
University of Connecticut
30 publications, 1.03%
|
|
University of Nebraska–Lincoln
29 publications, 1%
|
|
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
28 publications, 0.96%
|
|
University of California, Los Angeles
28 publications, 0.96%
|
|
Texas Tech University
28 publications, 0.96%
|
|
Bar-Ilan University
27 publications, 0.93%
|
|
Northwestern University
27 publications, 0.93%
|
|
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
27 publications, 0.93%
|
|
University of Denver
27 publications, 0.93%
|
|
University of Tennessee
27 publications, 0.93%
|
|
Florida State University
26 publications, 0.89%
|
|
University of California, Santa Barbara
26 publications, 0.89%
|
|
University of Wisconsin–Madison
25 publications, 0.86%
|
|
University of California, Davis
24 publications, 0.82%
|
|
Carnegie Mellon University
23 publications, 0.79%
|
|
York University
23 publications, 0.79%
|
|
Beijing Normal University
22 publications, 0.76%
|
|
University of Maryland, College Park
22 publications, 0.76%
|
|
University of Rochester
22 publications, 0.76%
|
|
University of Zurich
21 publications, 0.72%
|
|
Stony Brook University
21 publications, 0.72%
|
|
University of North Carolina at Greensboro
21 publications, 0.72%
|
|
Harvard University
20 publications, 0.69%
|
|
University of California, Irvine
20 publications, 0.69%
|
|
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
20 publications, 0.69%
|
|
Wayne State University
20 publications, 0.69%
|
|
University of Alabama
20 publications, 0.69%
|
|
Reichman University
19 publications, 0.65%
|
|
Auburn University
19 publications, 0.65%
|
|
McGill University
19 publications, 0.65%
|
|
Carleton University
19 publications, 0.65%
|
|
Texas Christian University
19 publications, 0.65%
|
|
University of Southern California
18 publications, 0.62%
|
|
University of Queensland
18 publications, 0.62%
|
|
University of British Columbia
18 publications, 0.62%
|
|
University of Groningen
18 publications, 0.62%
|
|
Utah State University
18 publications, 0.62%
|
|
Syracuse University
17 publications, 0.58%
|
|
Tilburg University
17 publications, 0.58%
|
|
University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee
17 publications, 0.58%
|
|
University of Houston
17 publications, 0.58%
|
|
University of Lausanne
16 publications, 0.55%
|
|
University of Auckland
16 publications, 0.55%
|
|
Deakin University
16 publications, 0.55%
|
|
Dalhousie University
16 publications, 0.55%
|
|
Virginia Tech
16 publications, 0.55%
|
|
University of South Florida
16 publications, 0.55%
|
|
University of Calgary
16 publications, 0.55%
|
|
University of Manitoba
16 publications, 0.55%
|
|
Texas State University
16 publications, 0.55%
|
|
Ghent University
15 publications, 0.52%
|
|
Radboud University Nijmegen
15 publications, 0.52%
|
|
Yale University
15 publications, 0.52%
|
|
Columbia University
15 publications, 0.52%
|
|
University of Guelph
15 publications, 0.52%
|
|
University of Florida
15 publications, 0.52%
|
|
Louisiana State University
15 publications, 0.52%
|
|
Indiana University Bloomington
15 publications, 0.52%
|
|
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
14 publications, 0.48%
|
|
West Virginia University
14 publications, 0.48%
|
|
University at Buffalo, State University of New York
14 publications, 0.48%
|
|
Oakland University
14 publications, 0.48%
|
|
Boston College
14 publications, 0.48%
|
|
University of Alberta
14 publications, 0.48%
|
|
University of Kentucky
14 publications, 0.48%
|
|
Texas A&M University
14 publications, 0.48%
|
|
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
13 publications, 0.45%
|
|
San Diego State University
13 publications, 0.45%
|
|
University of Waterloo
13 publications, 0.45%
|
|
University of Ottawa
13 publications, 0.45%
|
|
University of Delaware
13 publications, 0.45%
|
|
Southwest University
12 publications, 0.41%
|
|
North Carolina State University
12 publications, 0.41%
|
|
Chinese University of Hong Kong
12 publications, 0.41%
|
|
University of Texas at Dallas
12 publications, 0.41%
|
|
Simon Fraser University
12 publications, 0.41%
|
|
University of Colorado Boulder
12 publications, 0.41%
|
|
William & Mary
12 publications, 0.41%
|
|
Tel Aviv University
11 publications, 0.38%
|
|
Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore
11 publications, 0.38%
|
|
Cornell University
11 publications, 0.38%
|
|
Stanford University
11 publications, 0.38%
|
|
Oregon State University
11 publications, 0.38%
|
|
Utrecht University
11 publications, 0.38%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
|
Publishing organizations in 5 years
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
|
|
Arizona State University
31 publications, 3.53%
|
|
Pennsylvania State University
27 publications, 3.07%
|
|
University of Toronto
23 publications, 2.62%
|
|
University of Texas at Austin
22 publications, 2.5%
|
|
Brigham Young University
19 publications, 2.16%
|
|
University of Arizona
18 publications, 2.05%
|
|
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
16 publications, 1.82%
|
|
Beijing Normal University
15 publications, 1.71%
|
|
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
15 publications, 1.71%
|
|
Ohio State University
14 publications, 1.59%
|
|
Purdue University
14 publications, 1.59%
|
|
University of Nebraska–Lincoln
14 publications, 1.59%
|
|
Michigan State University
13 publications, 1.48%
|
|
University of Tennessee
13 publications, 1.48%
|
|
University of Connecticut
13 publications, 1.48%
|
|
University of Zurich
12 publications, 1.37%
|
|
Illinois State University
12 publications, 1.37%
|
|
University of Minnesota
12 publications, 1.37%
|
|
Carnegie Mellon University
11 publications, 1.25%
|
|
University of Washington
11 publications, 1.25%
|
|
York University
11 publications, 1.25%
|
|
Carleton University
11 publications, 1.25%
|
|
University of Alabama
11 publications, 1.25%
|
|
University of Lausanne
10 publications, 1.14%
|
|
University of Auckland
10 publications, 1.14%
|
|
University of Michigan
10 publications, 1.14%
|
|
Indiana University Bloomington
10 publications, 1.14%
|
|
Utah State University
10 publications, 1.14%
|
|
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
9 publications, 1.02%
|
|
Southwest University
9 publications, 1.02%
|
|
Stony Brook University
9 publications, 1.02%
|
|
Dalhousie University
9 publications, 1.02%
|
|
Harvard University
9 publications, 1.02%
|
|
University of California, Irvine
9 publications, 1.02%
|
|
University of South Florida
9 publications, 1.02%
|
|
McGill University
9 publications, 1.02%
|
|
Bar-Ilan University
8 publications, 0.91%
|
|
Ghent University
8 publications, 0.91%
|
|
Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore
8 publications, 0.91%
|
|
Deakin University
8 publications, 0.91%
|
|
Northwestern University
8 publications, 0.91%
|
|
Syracuse University
8 publications, 0.91%
|
|
University of California, Santa Barbara
8 publications, 0.91%
|
|
University of British Columbia
8 publications, 0.91%
|
|
University of Haifa
7 publications, 0.8%
|
|
Florida State University
7 publications, 0.8%
|
|
Chinese University of Hong Kong
7 publications, 0.8%
|
|
West Virginia University
7 publications, 0.8%
|
|
University of California, Los Angeles
7 publications, 0.8%
|
|
University of California, Merced
7 publications, 0.8%
|
|
Wayne State University
7 publications, 0.8%
|
|
University of Maryland, College Park
7 publications, 0.8%
|
|
University of Calgary
7 publications, 0.8%
|
|
University of Rochester
7 publications, 0.8%
|
|
University of Utah
7 publications, 0.8%
|
|
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
6 publications, 0.68%
|
|
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
6 publications, 0.68%
|
|
Reichman University
6 publications, 0.68%
|
|
Cornell University
6 publications, 0.68%
|
|
Yale University
6 publications, 0.68%
|
|
University of California, Davis
6 publications, 0.68%
|
|
Southern Methodist University
6 publications, 0.68%
|
|
Université de Sherbrooke
6 publications, 0.68%
|
|
Tilburg University
6 publications, 0.68%
|
|
Western University
6 publications, 0.68%
|
|
Louisiana State University
6 publications, 0.68%
|
|
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
6 publications, 0.68%
|
|
University of Denver
6 publications, 0.68%
|
|
Texas A&M University
6 publications, 0.68%
|
|
Texas Christian University
6 publications, 0.68%
|
|
Texas State University
6 publications, 0.68%
|
|
Université du Québec à Montréal
6 publications, 0.68%
|
|
University of Lisbon
5 publications, 0.57%
|
|
Radboud University Nijmegen
5 publications, 0.57%
|
|
University of Edinburgh
5 publications, 0.57%
|
|
University of Southern California
5 publications, 0.57%
|
|
Auburn University
5 publications, 0.57%
|
|
Hong Kong Polytechnic University
5 publications, 0.57%
|
|
Education University of Hong Kong
5 publications, 0.57%
|
|
University of Hong Kong
5 publications, 0.57%
|
|
University of California, Berkeley
5 publications, 0.57%
|
|
University of Notre Dame
5 publications, 0.57%
|
|
Oakland University
5 publications, 0.57%
|
|
Utrecht University
5 publications, 0.57%
|
|
Florida Atlantic University
5 publications, 0.57%
|
|
Texas Tech University
5 publications, 0.57%
|
|
University of Houston
5 publications, 0.57%
|
|
Zhejiang University
4 publications, 0.46%
|
|
University College London
4 publications, 0.46%
|
|
National University of Singapore
4 publications, 0.46%
|
|
University of Southampton
4 publications, 0.46%
|
|
Stanford University
4 publications, 0.46%
|
|
George Washington University
4 publications, 0.46%
|
|
Boston University
4 publications, 0.46%
|
|
North Carolina State University
4 publications, 0.46%
|
|
Virginia Tech
4 publications, 0.46%
|
|
San Diego State University
4 publications, 0.46%
|
|
University of Texas at Dallas
4 publications, 0.46%
|
|
Rhenish Friedrich Wilhelm University of Bonn
4 publications, 0.46%
|
|
University of Groningen
4 publications, 0.46%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
|
Publishing countries
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
|
|
USA
|
USA, 2003, 68.78%
USA
2003 publications, 68.78%
|
Canada
|
Canada, 292, 10.03%
Canada
292 publications, 10.03%
|
United Kingdom
|
United Kingdom, 130, 4.46%
United Kingdom
130 publications, 4.46%
|
Israel
|
Israel, 111, 3.81%
Israel
111 publications, 3.81%
|
China
|
China, 109, 3.74%
China
109 publications, 3.74%
|
Netherlands
|
Netherlands, 89, 3.06%
Netherlands
89 publications, 3.06%
|
Australia
|
Australia, 73, 2.51%
Australia
73 publications, 2.51%
|
Germany
|
Germany, 65, 2.23%
Germany
65 publications, 2.23%
|
Switzerland
|
Switzerland, 52, 1.79%
Switzerland
52 publications, 1.79%
|
Italy
|
Italy, 38, 1.3%
Italy
38 publications, 1.3%
|
Belgium
|
Belgium, 31, 1.06%
Belgium
31 publications, 1.06%
|
New Zealand
|
New Zealand, 26, 0.89%
New Zealand
26 publications, 0.89%
|
Turkey
|
Turkey, 21, 0.72%
Turkey
21 publications, 0.72%
|
Spain
|
Spain, 20, 0.69%
Spain
20 publications, 0.69%
|
Republic of Korea
|
Republic of Korea, 20, 0.69%
Republic of Korea
20 publications, 0.69%
|
Portugal
|
Portugal, 19, 0.65%
Portugal
19 publications, 0.65%
|
Poland
|
Poland, 14, 0.48%
Poland
14 publications, 0.48%
|
Singapore
|
Singapore, 13, 0.45%
Singapore
13 publications, 0.45%
|
Norway
|
Norway, 12, 0.41%
Norway
12 publications, 0.41%
|
Sweden
|
Sweden, 11, 0.38%
Sweden
11 publications, 0.38%
|
Montenegro
|
Montenegro, 10, 0.34%
Montenegro
10 publications, 0.34%
|
Japan
|
Japan, 9, 0.31%
Japan
9 publications, 0.31%
|
India
|
India, 8, 0.27%
India
8 publications, 0.27%
|
Finland
|
Finland, 8, 0.27%
Finland
8 publications, 0.27%
|
Greece
|
Greece, 7, 0.24%
Greece
7 publications, 0.24%
|
Chile
|
Chile, 7, 0.24%
Chile
7 publications, 0.24%
|
France
|
France, 6, 0.21%
France
6 publications, 0.21%
|
Denmark
|
Denmark, 6, 0.21%
Denmark
6 publications, 0.21%
|
Romania
|
Romania, 6, 0.21%
Romania
6 publications, 0.21%
|
Austria
|
Austria, 5, 0.17%
Austria
5 publications, 0.17%
|
Iran
|
Iran, 5, 0.17%
Iran
5 publications, 0.17%
|
Mexico
|
Mexico, 5, 0.17%
Mexico
5 publications, 0.17%
|
South Africa
|
South Africa, 5, 0.17%
South Africa
5 publications, 0.17%
|
Russia
|
Russia, 4, 0.14%
Russia
4 publications, 0.14%
|
Argentina
|
Argentina, 4, 0.14%
Argentina
4 publications, 0.14%
|
Ireland
|
Ireland, 4, 0.14%
Ireland
4 publications, 0.14%
|
Cyprus
|
Cyprus, 4, 0.14%
Cyprus
4 publications, 0.14%
|
Lithuania
|
Lithuania, 4, 0.14%
Lithuania
4 publications, 0.14%
|
Croatia
|
Croatia, 4, 0.14%
Croatia
4 publications, 0.14%
|
Brazil
|
Brazil, 3, 0.1%
Brazil
3 publications, 0.1%
|
Malaysia
|
Malaysia, 3, 0.1%
Malaysia
3 publications, 0.1%
|
Malta
|
Malta, 3, 0.1%
Malta
3 publications, 0.1%
|
Thailand
|
Thailand, 3, 0.1%
Thailand
3 publications, 0.1%
|
Czech Republic
|
Czech Republic, 3, 0.1%
Czech Republic
3 publications, 0.1%
|
Hungary
|
Hungary, 2, 0.07%
Hungary
2 publications, 0.07%
|
Ghana
|
Ghana, 2, 0.07%
Ghana
2 publications, 0.07%
|
Indonesia
|
Indonesia, 2, 0.07%
Indonesia
2 publications, 0.07%
|
Nigeria
|
Nigeria, 2, 0.07%
Nigeria
2 publications, 0.07%
|
Pakistan
|
Pakistan, 2, 0.07%
Pakistan
2 publications, 0.07%
|
Philippines
|
Philippines, 2, 0.07%
Philippines
2 publications, 0.07%
|
Ukraine
|
Ukraine, 1, 0.03%
Ukraine
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Estonia
|
Estonia, 1, 0.03%
Estonia
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Bangladesh
|
Bangladesh, 1, 0.03%
Bangladesh
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Bulgaria
|
Bulgaria, 1, 0.03%
Bulgaria
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Guatemala
|
Guatemala, 1, 0.03%
Guatemala
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Guam
|
Guam, 1, 0.03%
Guam
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Jordan
|
Jordan, 1, 0.03%
Jordan
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Iraq
|
Iraq, 1, 0.03%
Iraq
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Kenya
|
Kenya, 1, 0.03%
Kenya
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Colombia
|
Colombia, 1, 0.03%
Colombia
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Latvia
|
Latvia, 1, 0.03%
Latvia
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Liberia
|
Liberia, 1, 0.03%
Liberia
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Saudi Arabia
|
Saudi Arabia, 1, 0.03%
Saudi Arabia
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Slovenia
|
Slovenia, 1, 0.03%
Slovenia
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Tanzania
|
Tanzania, 1, 0.03%
Tanzania
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Trinidad and Tobago
|
Trinidad and Tobago, 1, 0.03%
Trinidad and Tobago
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Uruguay
|
Uruguay, 1, 0.03%
Uruguay
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Show all (37 more) | |
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
|
Publishing countries in 5 years
100
200
300
400
500
600
|
|
USA
|
USA, 546, 62.12%
USA
546 publications, 62.12%
|
Canada
|
Canada, 99, 11.26%
Canada
99 publications, 11.26%
|
China
|
China, 81, 9.22%
China
81 publications, 9.22%
|
Israel
|
Israel, 41, 4.66%
Israel
41 publications, 4.66%
|
United Kingdom
|
United Kingdom, 39, 4.44%
United Kingdom
39 publications, 4.44%
|
Germany
|
Germany, 33, 3.75%
Germany
33 publications, 3.75%
|
Netherlands
|
Netherlands, 28, 3.19%
Netherlands
28 publications, 3.19%
|
Switzerland
|
Switzerland, 28, 3.19%
Switzerland
28 publications, 3.19%
|
Australia
|
Australia, 24, 2.73%
Australia
24 publications, 2.73%
|
Italy
|
Italy, 21, 2.39%
Italy
21 publications, 2.39%
|
Portugal
|
Portugal, 15, 1.71%
Portugal
15 publications, 1.71%
|
Belgium
|
Belgium, 14, 1.59%
Belgium
14 publications, 1.59%
|
New Zealand
|
New Zealand, 14, 1.59%
New Zealand
14 publications, 1.59%
|
Spain
|
Spain, 13, 1.48%
Spain
13 publications, 1.48%
|
Turkey
|
Turkey, 13, 1.48%
Turkey
13 publications, 1.48%
|
Republic of Korea
|
Republic of Korea, 11, 1.25%
Republic of Korea
11 publications, 1.25%
|
Poland
|
Poland, 8, 0.91%
Poland
8 publications, 0.91%
|
Singapore
|
Singapore, 6, 0.68%
Singapore
6 publications, 0.68%
|
Chile
|
Chile, 6, 0.68%
Chile
6 publications, 0.68%
|
Sweden
|
Sweden, 6, 0.68%
Sweden
6 publications, 0.68%
|
India
|
India, 5, 0.57%
India
5 publications, 0.57%
|
France
|
France, 4, 0.46%
France
4 publications, 0.46%
|
Greece
|
Greece, 4, 0.46%
Greece
4 publications, 0.46%
|
Lithuania
|
Lithuania, 4, 0.46%
Lithuania
4 publications, 0.46%
|
Norway
|
Norway, 4, 0.46%
Norway
4 publications, 0.46%
|
Russia
|
Russia, 3, 0.34%
Russia
3 publications, 0.34%
|
Austria
|
Austria, 3, 0.34%
Austria
3 publications, 0.34%
|
Brazil
|
Brazil, 3, 0.34%
Brazil
3 publications, 0.34%
|
Iran
|
Iran, 3, 0.34%
Iran
3 publications, 0.34%
|
Malta
|
Malta, 3, 0.34%
Malta
3 publications, 0.34%
|
Romania
|
Romania, 3, 0.34%
Romania
3 publications, 0.34%
|
Czech Republic
|
Czech Republic, 3, 0.34%
Czech Republic
3 publications, 0.34%
|
South Africa
|
South Africa, 3, 0.34%
South Africa
3 publications, 0.34%
|
Ghana
|
Ghana, 2, 0.23%
Ghana
2 publications, 0.23%
|
Denmark
|
Denmark, 2, 0.23%
Denmark
2 publications, 0.23%
|
Indonesia
|
Indonesia, 2, 0.23%
Indonesia
2 publications, 0.23%
|
Ireland
|
Ireland, 2, 0.23%
Ireland
2 publications, 0.23%
|
Cyprus
|
Cyprus, 2, 0.23%
Cyprus
2 publications, 0.23%
|
Nigeria
|
Nigeria, 2, 0.23%
Nigeria
2 publications, 0.23%
|
Pakistan
|
Pakistan, 2, 0.23%
Pakistan
2 publications, 0.23%
|
Thailand
|
Thailand, 2, 0.23%
Thailand
2 publications, 0.23%
|
Finland
|
Finland, 2, 0.23%
Finland
2 publications, 0.23%
|
Japan
|
Japan, 2, 0.23%
Japan
2 publications, 0.23%
|
Ukraine
|
Ukraine, 1, 0.11%
Ukraine
1 publication, 0.11%
|
Argentina
|
Argentina, 1, 0.11%
Argentina
1 publication, 0.11%
|
Bangladesh
|
Bangladesh, 1, 0.11%
Bangladesh
1 publication, 0.11%
|
Hungary
|
Hungary, 1, 0.11%
Hungary
1 publication, 0.11%
|
Guatemala
|
Guatemala, 1, 0.11%
Guatemala
1 publication, 0.11%
|
Kenya
|
Kenya, 1, 0.11%
Kenya
1 publication, 0.11%
|
Colombia
|
Colombia, 1, 0.11%
Colombia
1 publication, 0.11%
|
Latvia
|
Latvia, 1, 0.11%
Latvia
1 publication, 0.11%
|
Liberia
|
Liberia, 1, 0.11%
Liberia
1 publication, 0.11%
|
Malaysia
|
Malaysia, 1, 0.11%
Malaysia
1 publication, 0.11%
|
Mexico
|
Mexico, 1, 0.11%
Mexico
1 publication, 0.11%
|
Slovenia
|
Slovenia, 1, 0.11%
Slovenia
1 publication, 0.11%
|
Tanzania
|
Tanzania, 1, 0.11%
Tanzania
1 publication, 0.11%
|
Uruguay
|
Uruguay, 1, 0.11%
Uruguay
1 publication, 0.11%
|
Philippines
|
Philippines, 1, 0.11%
Philippines
1 publication, 0.11%
|
Show all (28 more) | |
100
200
300
400
500
600
|
1 profile journal article
Emelyanova Tatiana
DSc in Psychology, Professor

Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences
13 publications,
84 citations
h-index: 5
1 profile journal article
Beames Joanne
41 publications,
594 citations
h-index: 12
1 profile journal article
Wittich Walter
184 publications,
2 333 citations
h-index: 23
1 profile journal article
Pauly Theresa
50 publications,
508 citations
h-index: 13