Open Access
Advances in Hematology
Are you a researcher?
Create a profile to get free access to personal recommendations for colleagues and new articles.
SCImago
Q3
SJR
0.553
CiteScore
3.3
Categories
Hematology
Areas
Medicine
Years of issue
2009-2024
journal names
Advances in Hematology
Top-3 citing journals

Frontiers in Immunology
(73 citations)

International Journal of Molecular Sciences
(70 citations)

British Journal of Haematology
(65 citations)
Top-3 organizations

Massachusetts General Hospital
(7 publications)
Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico
(6 publications)

University of Turin
(6 publications)

University of Cape Coast
(3 publications)

Drexel University
(2 publications)

New York University
(2 publications)
Top-3 countries
Most cited in 5 years
Found
Publications found: 333
Q1

Trends in electronic health record metadata use for management purposes
Xu N., Badwaik I., Lee G., Ford E.W.
AbstractObjectiveThis study aims to analyze hospitals' adoption and integration of electronic health record (EHR) metadata into their management processes.DesignThe study compares the rates of EHR metadata utilization across various hospitals over time. Hospitals' self‐reported use of EHR metadata is drawn from the AHA‐IT Supplements from 2018 to 2020. An analysis of metadata utilization by EHR vendors is also provided.MethodThe study uses Bass diffusion modeling to estimate EHR adoption parameters by fitting adoption rate data from 2018 to 2020, using Excel Solver to minimize prediction errors. The estimated internal and external influence coefficients reveal which factor primarily drives adoption, while the diffusion model enables future projection of tipping point and adoption level.ResultsAnalysis of EHR metadata utilization rates from 2018 to 2020 find a significant trend towards the integration of this data into hospital management practices. Among health systems responding to the items of interest, 69% of them are already using EHR metadata, and it is projected that nearly all will do so by 2035. Further, metadata use varied significantly depending on the vendor.DiscussionThe study underscores that hospital managers' intrinsic motivations, rather than external demands, are driving EHR metadata. As innovations with greater intrinsic appeal spread more rapidly and have greater staying power, EHR metadata use will continue to grow. These trends are indicative of the growing importance of EHR metadata in management decision‐making, clinical quality improvement, and optimizing workforce efficiency.ConclusionsEHR metadata holds great promise as a managerial and health service research source. The tools' utilities would be enhanced if EHR vendors created uniform metrics.
Q1

Aligning forces to accelerate healthcare transformation: Insights from the UPMC learning community
Holder D., Keyser D., Kogan J., Hurford M.O., Lovelace J., Schuster J.
AbstractIntroductionTo accelerate transformation toward value‐based, equitable care, health systems need a viable approach for engaging and aligning multiple stakeholders to promote innovation. Building and sustaining learning communities offers one possible solution.MethodsWe describe how one learning community has leveraged the collective strengths, assets, and expertise of multiple stakeholders to improve care value for subpopulations who experience low‐quality, high‐cost, and/or inequitable health outcomes.ResultsBy providing critical infrastructure and support, UPMC's Learning Community was able to (1) accelerate adoption of risk‐based payment models that promote shared accountability among providers, payers, and families/caregivers for the total costs of care of children and adolescents with medically complex conditions, (2) drive widespread practice change for improving physical and mental wellness for individuals with serious mental illness, and (3) increase access to evidence‐based treatment and improve outcomes for individuals with opioid and substance use disorders.ConclusionsLearning communities can serve as important catalyzers for the payment, practice, and service delivery innovation necessary to achieve a high‐value, equitable health system.
Q1

The learning health system imperative in low‐resource contexts
Lewicki P., Swarray‐Deen A., Moyer C.A.
AbstractIntroductionLearning health system (LHS) development has been described in the highest resource settings, which could suggest that resources are a precondition to LHS formation.MethodWe reviewed literature surrounding LHSs in low‐resource contexts and used this to inform an argument that LHS activity is critically important in these circumstances.ResultsWe focus on three key points. First, when resources are scarce, they should not be squandered. Second, local knowledge artifacts have advantages. Finally, LHS emphasis on lasting sociotechnical infrastructure addresses sustainability concerns.ConclusionWe believe LHS formation and activity is more important in low‐resource contexts than in their higher resource counterparts. Less path dependence in many low‐resource contexts forecasts that LHSs may see their greatest success there.
Q1

Development of learning health system competency items related to health and healthcare equity and justice for rehabilitation researchers
Dunlap P.M., Poploski K.M., Anderson C.A., Annaswamy T.M., Clark M.A., Coyle P.C., Douglas N.F., Flores A.M., Freburger J.K., Hafner B.J., Harwood K.J., Hoffman J.M., Kinney A.R., Resnik L., Ressel K., et. al.
AbstractIntroductionIn 2021, the Learning Health Systems Rehabilitation Research Network (LeaRRn) developed and administered a needs assessment survey, based on the Agency on Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ's) original seven domains of learning health systems (LHS) researcher core competencies, to identify knowledge and interest in LHS research competencies among rehabilitation researchers. In 2022, the AHRQ added a new health and healthcare equity and justice (HE) domain to the existing seven domains for LHS researcher core competencies.MethodsLeaRRn utilized methods similar to those employed in the development of their original needs assessment survey to generate and refine competency items for the HE domain. In this report, we describe the methods used to develop these HE competency items.Results & ConclusionsOther training programs and LHS researchers may use the competency items developed for this needs assessment survey to identify training opportunities in the HE domain.
Q1

Advancing environmentally sustainable learning health systems: Perspectives from a Canadian health center
Barber B.V., Sinclair D., Cassidy C.
AbstractBackgroundThere is increasing demand for health systems to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and invest in climate‐resilient health care. Coordinating organizational structures and processes for reducing health system emissions presents challenges. Learning health systems, defined as systems that seek to continuously generate and apply evidence, innovation, quality, and value in health care, can guide health systems with planning organizational structures and processes to advance environmentally sustainable healthcare. The purpose of this research is to gather in‐depth insight from key health system leaders and healthcare professionals to identify challenges and recommendations for planning environmentally sustainable learning health systems.MethodsEnvironmental scan methods were used, comprising jurisdictional literature review and informal discussions with key informants at one tertiary care center in Nova Scotia, Canada. Key informants were asked to describe challenges of coordinating environmentally sustainable health system structures and processes, and recommendations to advance planning for environmentally sustainable learning health systems. Deductive thematic analysis was used to categorize challenges and recommendations into seven characteristics of a learning health system framework.ResultsInformal discussions with 16 key informants provide detailed descriptions of 7 challenges and recommendations for planning and coordinating organizational structures and processes to advance environmentally sustainable learning health systems. Health system challenges include limited patient and community engagement, no systematic approach to measuring and monitoring emissions data, and limited knowledge of sustainability co‐benefits and strategies for mobilizing sustainable organizational change. Recommendations include engaging patients and communities in co‐creation of sustainable healthcare, monitoring of emissions data identifying high‐impact areas for action, and well‐coordinated leadership supporting sustainable policies, procedures, and decision‐making in practice.ConclusionLearning health systems provide structure for establishing critical processes to adapt to routinely collected data through rapid cycle improvements, and operationalization of value‐based health care that prioritizes health outcomes, reduction of costs, and mitigating environmental impacts.
Q1

Moving from a registry to a learning health system: A case study of a Dutch prostate cancer registry
Belleman T., van Wijngaarden J.D., Kuppen M.C., de Groot S., van der Velden K.J., Bosch D., van Oort I.M., Uyl‐de Groot C.A., van Deen W.K.
AbstractIntroductionLearning health systems (LHSs) are systems that seamlessly embed continuous quality improvement based on real‐world data. To establish LHSs, several infrastructures need to be in place. Registries already have part(s) of this infrastructure and could therefore be leveraged to establish LHSs. This study aims to identify key factors facilitating the transition of registries into LHS to support continuous learning from real‐world data.MethodsEleven interviews with 12 stakeholders, including medical specialists and nonmedical stakeholders, were conducted in the context of a prostate cancer registry. Findings were coded deductively based on seven previously identified facilitators for learning: complexity, relative advantage, compatibility, credibility, social impact, actionability, and resource match. These facilitators cover technical, social, and organizational aspects. An inductive phase followed to pinpoint factors for continuous learning and LHSs. Subsequently, two focus groups were conducted to ensure accurate interpretation of findings, and five expert panels to provide additional context.ResultsComplexity within healthcare systems emerged as a significant challenge, attributed to multiple stakeholders and the rapidly changing healthcare landscape. The advantage of LHSs is the timely availability of population‐based data for real‐time care adjustments. Compatibility of the system with stakeholders' needs was considered pivotal requiring a relatively flexible infrastructure. Credibility of data and results was supported by creating transparent processes in which stakeholders could review data from their own patient population. Social influences, including interpersonal trust and engaged leadership, fostered collaboration within LHSs. Actionability of the findings and resource match were vital for knowledge translation and sustainability.ConclusionOur findings provide practical recommendations to support registries in transitioning towards LHSs by leveraging and expanding their infrastructure for continuous learning. We identified technical, interpersonal, and organizational factors that facilitate continuous and rapid learning using real‐world data, create transparent and collaborative infrastructures, and help to navigate the complexity of the healthcare system.
Q1

Public–private partnership in pipelining science of acute care ecosystem: Insights from Taiwan's Presidential Hackathon
Chen C., Yeh Y., Chan T., Wu Y.
AbstractIntroductionThe acute care system faced significant challenges in managing healthcare emergencies due to a lack of coordination between emergency services and logistical support. This disorganization undermined collaboration and response efficiency.MethodsTaiwan's Presidential Hackathon introduced an innovative approach to improving the trauma system by integrating digital pipeline science through public–private partnerships (PPPs). This initiative specifically addressed inefficiencies and complexities in the acute care ecosystem, brought to light by the catastrophic 2014 gas explosion in Kaohsiung City.ResultsThe hackathon led to the development of a unified digital platform for emergency data management. This platform significantly enhanced communication, data sharing, and coordination across healthcare sectors, culminating in the implementation of a digital pre‐hospital emergency care system across multiple administrative regions.ConclusionOur experience demonstrated the effectiveness of leveraging digital technologies, PPPs, and the hackathon model to revolutionize emergency healthcare management and response systems through cross‐sector collaboration.
Q1

Bridging research and practice in a learning health system: Developing and refining an embedded scholars program through insights from scholars and clinical mentors
Sherrill W.W., Hall L., Fredendall L., Evatt J.H.
AbstractIntroductionA learning health system (LHS) necessitates collaboration to produce translational health research. This experience report examines the integration of Clemson University scholars into clinical departments of Prisma Health–Upstate in South Carolina, highlighting their experiences working alongside clinician mentors to inform and facilitate research translation. Particularly, this study aims to explore the interpersonal and structural factors influencing the success of an embedded scholar program, focusing on enablers and barriers to collaboration, knowledge integration, and mentorship within the LHS.MethodsNine embedded scholar and 12 mentor semi‐structured interviews were conducted. This qualitative study initially used an inductive technique to analyze responses thematically. After thematic saturation was achieved, deductive analysis was utilized to further organize enablers and barriers across the following five categories: (1) Scholar Integration, (2) Scholar Autonomy, (3) Mentor Support, (4) Programmatic Outcomes, and (5) Institutional Dynamics.ResultsWe found 10 major program‐related enablers and barriers to successfully embedding scholars. These were clinical environment adaptation, mentor interaction, research management, balance of independence, role clarity, resource provision, research application and quality, scholar development, organizational support, and policy and procedure alignment. Findings reveal that effective mentorship, organizational alignment, and resource availability are critical enablers of program success, while misaligned expectations, limited institutional support, and insufficient scholar integration into clinical environments are barriers.ConclusionEvaluating specific components of embedded scholar programs can uncover best practices and innovation opportunities in the LHS. These provide a great opportunity to enhance the mentorship mechanisms between clinical mentors and embedded researchers. As research on embedded scholars in a LHS progresses, fostering structured mentoring relationships may serve as an impetus to bridge the gap between research and clinical practice. Further study is needed to operationalize these relationships effectively.
Q1

Exploring implementation of interventions to facilitate integration in fragmented healthcare systems
Bragdon C., Siden R., Winget M., Harris S.R., Carey R., Ko J., Vyas A., Brown‐Johnson C.
AbstractIntroductionStanford Medicine is working to better coordinate care across the Stanford healthcare system, as well as improve patient and provider experiences in seeking and receiving care. This study aimed to explore the complexities of moving from a fragmented to an integrated academic healthcare system and to identify and explain factors (e.g., facilitators and barriers) of the implementation of three interventions meant to improve patient experience, reduce staff burden, and integrate health care systems across faculty and community settings.MethodsWe conducted qualitative semi‐structured interviews via Zoom with faculty and community physicians. Interviews were audio‐recorded, professionally transcribed, and analyzed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and open coding. Using consensus coding approaches, researchers met regularly to discuss themes and adaptations to CFIR.ResultsWe analyzed transcripts from interviews with physicians (n = 26). Factors impacting integration included the following: (1) physicians supported the interventions, promoting mission alignment; (2) physicians were motivated for change, reporting the existing system was intolerable; (3) physicians reported different priorities between clinics: faculty versus community and primary care versus specialty; (4) physicians prioritized interpersonal versus system solutions; (5) specialists were wary of unintended consequences of integration, specifically inappropriate bookings or patients being redirected to other clinics. Broadly speaking, facilitator factors 1–2 focused on the openness to, and tension for, change; and barrier factors 3–5 promoted or sustained variation across specialties and faculty/community clinics.ConclusionsOur results illustrate the challenges and opportunities of moving from a fragmented to an integrated healthcare system and emphasize the importance of building shared culture, collaboration, and coordinated actions across and within an integrated healthcare network.
Q1

Relational coordination and team‐based care: Change initiative overload and other challenges in a learning health system
Hajjar L., Olaleye O., Yang J., McGirr S., Sullivan E.E.
AbstractIntroductionMost change interventions to address quality of care and lower costs focus on technical aspects of the work through process improvements, which have not consistently delivered the anticipated impact for healthcare organizations. This study aims to (1) understand how relational interventions including shared huddles and cross‐role shadowing opportunities, impact team dynamics and functioning and (2) describe the challenges and opportunities associated with implementing relational interventions at an Academic Medical Center in a large metropolitan city in the United States.MethodsThis paper is a mixed method, pre–post‐intervention study in which data were collected using a validated survey, observations, interviews, and one focus group. Relational coordination survey data were analyzed within and across eight interdependent workgroups on three inpatient medical units at baseline and 16 months post‐intervention. Qualitative data were coded and analyzed for themes.ResultsWhile there were some improvements in overall relational coordination between baseline and post‐intervention measures, the findings were not statistically significant. Qualitative data reveal four themes, highlighting the strengths and barriers to the intervention: (1) incomplete fidelity to the relational coordination framework, (2) leadership, (3) meeting structure and participation, and (4) stakeholder engagement.ConclusionsWithin the healthcare context, this study contributes to our learning about implementing and measuring relational interventions. We offer insights for future research and practice on change initiative overload and operational constraints, socializing relational interventions, and balancing core and non‐core roles in the intervention strategy.
Q1

Operationalizing a learning health system: A self‐assessment tool for interprofessional teams
Rentes V.C., Kalpakjian C., Sales A., Krumm A.
AbstractBackgroundThe operationalization of learning health system (LHS) principles remains challenging, with minimal guidance currently available to support interprofessional teams on the ground. Consequently, LHS initiatives often fall short of their intended objectives, resulting in wasted resources, delays, and mounting frustration among key stakeholders.MethodsTo bridge this gap, we used design science and participatory action research to co‐develop an operational roadmap for interprofessional LHS teams. Data sources for roadmap design included quantitative and qualitative feedback from interprofessional stakeholders (n = 20) from an academic health system and a pragmatic literature review. Using these data sources, we conducted three design iterations until a final version was reached.ResultsThe resulting roadmap specifies processes to be performed during project‐based LHS initiatives, and provides a self‐assessment tool that enables team members to quantitatively evaluate progress. For generalizability and standardization across settings, we used clinically neutral terminology to describe all elements in the roadmap. We demonstrated content validity through multiple rounds of data collection and analyses with stakeholders. A simulated demonstration is provided to illustrate how the roadmap may be used for team assessments in practice.ConclusionsParticipants considered the roadmap to be an effective tool to assist project management and highly useful for evaluating teams' progress for planning and communication purposes. As a reference model, the roadmap may be re‐utilized across multiple LHS initiatives in any given health system to standardize and streamline LHS development. This research was conducted within a single department in an academic health system, and future research is needed to assess the roadmap's generalizability in other settings. To facilitate development of similar or complementary instruments, the detailed design methodology used in this research may be replicated and/or tailored in other contexts.
Q1

Academically based regional quality improvement hubs: Advancing Medicaid's quality strategy in the state of Ohio through state‐academic partnerships
Crane D., Applegate M., Liu G., Lorenz A., Bolen S., Jordan C.R., McCoy M., Barley J., Yuan Y., Jenkins K., Nance M., Waweru A., Kubiak J., Lorincz C., Spence D.
AbstractIntroductionIn 2022, the Ohio Department of Medicaid (ODM) launched a Managed Care Population Health and Quality Strategy to improve healthcare quality and equity for Medicaid Managed Care enrollees. Aligned with national quality objectives, the strategy focuses on personalized care, service coordination for complex needs, reducing health disparities, and includes performance incentives for Managed Care Organizations (MCOs) and innovative provider payment models. While Ohio has made progress in quality improvement, challenges remain in addressing statewide health indicators and disparities and helping healthcare providers adapt to performance‐based models. This report outlines a new approach that builds on Ohio's partnership with six colleges of medicine (CoMs) to support provider organizations and engage stakeholders in quality improvement (QI).MethodsODM established Regional QI Hubs within Ohio's CoMs to advance population health initiatives using the Model for Improvement developed by the Associate in Process Improvement. These academically based hubs collaborate with local healthcare clinics, community partners, and payers on QI projects to enhance care, reduce disparities, and strengthen health systems. By engaging stakeholders in designing and testing change ideas using Plan‐Do‐Study‐Act cycles and electronic health record data feedback, QI Hubs further the goals of the learning health system.ResultsKey lessons highlight the benefits of engaging academic institutions to build internal QI capacity and promote health equity. The model required substantial capacity building and commitment on behalf of academic institutions and strengthening of regional partnerships. Collaboration between MCOs and health clinics is focused on standardizing processes to access services and implement best practices. Patient, family, and community engagement efforts aim to improve patient experience and address drivers of health equity. Each partner leverages resources and benefits from the collaboration.ConclusionsOhio's academically based Regional QI Hub Model offers a promising approach to advancing population health. Policymakers are encouraged to consider integrating academic expertise into state quality strategies.
Q1

A machine learning approach to predicting inpatient mortality among pediatric acute gastroenteritis patients in Kenya
Ogwel B., Mzazi V.H., Nyawanda B.O., Otieno G., Tickell K.D., Omore R.
AbstractBackgroundMortality prediction scores for children admitted with diarrhea are unavailable, early identification of at‐risk patients for proper management remains a challenge. This study utilizes machine learning (ML) to develop a highly sensitive model for timelier identification of at‐risk children admitted with acute gastroenteritis (AGE) for better management.MethodsWe used seven ML algorithms to build prognostic models for the prediction of mortality using de‐identified data collected from children aged <5 years hospitalized with AGE at Siaya County Referral Hospital (SCRH), Kenya, between 2010 through 2020. Potential predictors included demographic, medical history, and clinical examination data collected at admission to hospital. We conducted split‐sampling and employed tenfold cross‐validation in the model development. We evaluated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and the area under the curve (AUC) for each of the models.ResultsDuring the study period, 12 546 children aged <5 years admitted at SCRH were enrolled in the inpatient disease surveillance, of whom 2271 (18.1%) had AGE and 164 (7.2%) subsequently died. The following features were identified as predictors of mortality in decreasing order: AVPU scale, Vesikari score, dehydration, sunken eyes, skin pinch, maximum number of vomits, unconsciousness, wasting, vomiting, pulse, fever, sunken fontanelle, restless, nasal flaring, diarrhea days, stridor, <90% oxygen saturation, chest indrawing, malaria, and stunting. The sensitivity ranged from 46.3%–78.0% across models, while the specificity and AUC ranged from 71.7% to 78.7% and 56.5%–82.6%, respectively. The random forest model emerged as the champion model achieving 78.0%, 76.6%, 20.6%, 97.8%, and 82.6% for sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and AUC, respectively.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates promising predictive performance of the proposed algorithm for identifying patients at risk of mortality in resource‐limited settings. However, further validation in real‐world clinical settings is needed to assess its feasibility and potential impact on patient outcomes.
Top-100
Citing journals
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
|
|
Frontiers in Immunology
73 citations, 1.43%
|
|
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
70 citations, 1.38%
|
|
British Journal of Haematology
65 citations, 1.28%
|
|
Leukemia and Lymphoma
57 citations, 1.12%
|
|
Cancers
56 citations, 1.1%
|
|
Annals of Hematology
53 citations, 1.04%
|
|
PLoS ONE
52 citations, 1.02%
|
|
Bone Marrow Transplantation
51 citations, 1%
|
|
Blood
48 citations, 0.94%
|
|
Scientific Reports
42 citations, 0.83%
|
|
Expert Review of Hematology
38 citations, 0.75%
|
|
Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation
37 citations, 0.73%
|
|
Cureus
33 citations, 0.65%
|
|
Frontiers in Oncology
32 citations, 0.63%
|
|
Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma and Leukemia
32 citations, 0.63%
|
|
Blood advances
30 citations, 0.59%
|
|
International Journal of Hematology
27 citations, 0.53%
|
|
Leukemia
26 citations, 0.51%
|
|
Transplantation and Cellular Therapy
25 citations, 0.49%
|
|
Journal of Clinical Medicine
24 citations, 0.47%
|
|
Blood Reviews
23 citations, 0.45%
|
|
Transfusion
23 citations, 0.45%
|
|
Advances in Hematology
23 citations, 0.45%
|
|
European Journal of Haematology
21 citations, 0.41%
|
|
Transfusion and Apheresis Science
21 citations, 0.41%
|
|
American Journal of Hematology
21 citations, 0.41%
|
|
Leukemia Research
20 citations, 0.39%
|
|
Thrombosis Research
19 citations, 0.37%
|
|
Cells
18 citations, 0.35%
|
|
Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology
17 citations, 0.33%
|
|
Indian Journal of Hematology and Blood Transfusion
17 citations, 0.33%
|
|
Developmental and Comparative Immunology
16 citations, 0.31%
|
|
Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology
14 citations, 0.28%
|
|
Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis
14 citations, 0.28%
|
|
Journal of Clinical Investigation
13 citations, 0.26%
|
|
BMJ Open
13 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Blood Cancer Journal
13 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Oncology Letters
13 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Frontiers in Pharmacology
13 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Free Radical Biology and Medicine
13 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Journal of Biological Chemistry
13 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Pediatric Blood and Cancer
12 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Hemoglobin
12 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Journal of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology
12 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Current Opinion in Hematology
12 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Current Hematologic Malignancy Reports
11 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Nutrients
11 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Hematology, Transfusion and Cell Therapy
11 citations, 0.22%
|
|
BMC Cancer
11 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Journal of Immunology
11 citations, 0.22%
|
|
BioMed Research International
11 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Cytotherapy
11 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Antioxidants
11 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Seminars in Hematology
11 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Journal of Hematology and Oncology
11 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology
10 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis
10 citations, 0.2%
|
|
DMM Disease Models and Mechanisms
10 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Stem Cell Research and Therapy
10 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Blood Cells, Molecules, and Diseases
10 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Journal of Blood Medicine
10 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Cancer
10 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Laboratory Medicine
10 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Klinicheskaya Onkogematologiya/Clinical Oncohematology
10 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Biomedicine and Pharmacotherapy
10 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Therapeutic Advances in Hematology
10 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Tumor Biology
9 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Nature Communications
9 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences
9 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Antioxidants and Redox Signaling
9 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Platelets
9 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Journal of Hematopathology
9 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Fish and Shellfish Immunology
9 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Hematology
9 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Hematology/Oncology Clinics of North America
9 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Medicine (United States)
9 citations, 0.18%
|
|
International Journal of Laboratory Hematology
9 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Biomedicines
9 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Experimental Hematology
8 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Pharmaceuticals
8 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Advances in Therapy
8 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Frontiers in Genetics
8 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Biomolecules
8 citations, 0.16%
|
|
OncoImmunology
8 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Frontiers in Medicine
8 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Frontiers in Microbiology
8 citations, 0.16%
|
|
eJHaem
8 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Molecular Biology Reports
7 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Molecular Medicine Reports
7 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
7 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Journal of Experimental and Clinical Cancer Research
7 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Transfusion Clinique et Biologique
7 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Oncologist
7 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Supportive Care in Cancer
7 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Hematology / the Education Program of the American Society of Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program
7 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Anti-Cancer Agents in Medicinal Chemistry
7 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Journal of Leukocyte Biology
7 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Hematological Oncology
7 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Frontiers in Physiology
7 citations, 0.14%
|
|
BMC Research Notes
7 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
|
Citing publishers
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
|
|
Elsevier
1034 citations, 20.32%
|
|
Springer Nature
893 citations, 17.55%
|
|
Wiley
541 citations, 10.63%
|
|
MDPI
320 citations, 6.29%
|
|
Taylor & Francis
298 citations, 5.86%
|
|
Frontiers Media S.A.
229 citations, 4.5%
|
|
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
133 citations, 2.61%
|
|
SAGE
106 citations, 2.08%
|
|
American Society of Hematology
99 citations, 1.95%
|
|
Hindawi Limited
95 citations, 1.87%
|
|
Oxford University Press
66 citations, 1.3%
|
|
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
64 citations, 1.26%
|
|
Spandidos Publications
43 citations, 0.84%
|
|
BMJ
43 citations, 0.84%
|
|
Mary Ann Liebert
39 citations, 0.77%
|
|
Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.
35 citations, 0.69%
|
|
American Chemical Society (ACS)
33 citations, 0.65%
|
|
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
25 citations, 0.49%
|
|
S. Karger AG
25 citations, 0.49%
|
|
Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)
23 citations, 0.45%
|
|
American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
21 citations, 0.41%
|
|
20 citations, 0.39%
|
|
IntechOpen
20 citations, 0.39%
|
|
Walter de Gruyter
19 citations, 0.37%
|
|
The Company of Biologists
19 citations, 0.37%
|
|
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
18 citations, 0.35%
|
|
American Society for Clinical Investigation
16 citations, 0.31%
|
|
American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
15 citations, 0.29%
|
|
14 citations, 0.28%
|
|
Baishideng Publishing Group
14 citations, 0.28%
|
|
American Society for Microbiology
13 citations, 0.26%
|
|
American Association for Cancer Research (AACR)
13 citations, 0.26%
|
|
American Physiological Society
12 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Medknow
12 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Scientific Research Publishing
12 citations, 0.24%
|
|
The American Association of Immunologists
11 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Practical Medicine Publishing House
10 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Cambridge University Press
9 citations, 0.18%
|
|
AME Publishing Company
9 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Research Square Platform LLC
9 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Ferrata Storti Foundation
8 citations, 0.16%
|
|
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
7 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Society for Translational Oncology
7 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)
6 citations, 0.12%
|
|
American Medical Association (AMA)
6 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Annual Reviews
6 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
6 citations, 0.12%
|
|
PAGEPress Publications
6 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Rockefeller University Press
5 citations, 0.1%
|
|
King Saud University
5 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Impact Journals
5 citations, 0.1%
|
|
IOP Publishing
5 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Massachusetts Medical Society
5 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishing
5 citations, 0.1%
|
|
F1000 Research
5 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Japanese Society for Lymphoreticular Tissue Research
5 citations, 0.1%
|
|
The Korean Society of Hematology
5 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Pleiades Publishing
4 citations, 0.08%
|
|
King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre
4 citations, 0.08%
|
|
Portland Press
4 citations, 0.08%
|
|
American Society for Nutrition
4 citations, 0.08%
|
|
Consilium Medicum
4 citations, 0.08%
|
|
Publishing House ABV Press
4 citations, 0.08%
|
|
JMIR Publications
4 citations, 0.08%
|
|
Scientific Scholar
4 citations, 0.08%
|
|
3 citations, 0.06%
|
|
IOS Press
3 citations, 0.06%
|
|
The Japanese Journal of Gastroenterological Surgery
3 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Society of Nuclear Medicine
3 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Eco-Vector LLC
3 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Oncology Nursing Society
3 citations, 0.06%
|
|
National Medical Association
3 citations, 0.06%
|
|
American College of Physicians
3 citations, 0.06%
|
|
American Society of Health-System Pharmacists
3 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Mark Allen Group
3 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Maad Rayan Publishing Company
3 citations, 0.06%
|
|
OAE Publishing Inc.
3 citations, 0.06%
|
|
OOO Grafika
3 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Arterialnaya Gipertenziya
3 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Media Sphere Publishing House
3 citations, 0.06%
|
|
SLACK
3 citations, 0.06%
|
|
World Scientific
2 citations, 0.04%
|
|
2 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Pharmaceutical Society of Japan
2 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences
2 citations, 0.04%
|
|
AIP Publishing
2 citations, 0.04%
|
|
The Royal Society
2 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Higher Education Press
2 citations, 0.04%
|
|
2 citations, 0.04%
|
|
American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
2 citations, 0.04%
|
|
American Society of Nephrology
2 citations, 0.04%
|
|
PeerJ
2 citations, 0.04%
|
|
2 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Editions E D K
2 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group (JNSPG)
2 citations, 0.04%
|
|
American Association for Clinical Chemistry
2 citations, 0.04%
|
|
The Endocrine Society
2 citations, 0.04%
|
|
2 citations, 0.04%
|
|
American Thoracic Society
2 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Russian Photodynamic Association
2 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
|
Publishing organizations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
|
|
Massachusetts General Hospital
7 publications, 2.03%
|
|
Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico
6 publications, 1.74%
|
|
University of Turin
6 publications, 1.74%
|
|
University of Cape Coast
6 publications, 1.74%
|
|
Emory University
6 publications, 1.74%
|
|
University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
6 publications, 1.74%
|
|
University of Ghana
5 publications, 1.45%
|
|
University of British Columbia
5 publications, 1.45%
|
|
University of Toronto
5 publications, 1.45%
|
|
Mansoura University
5 publications, 1.45%
|
|
University of Bologna
4 publications, 1.16%
|
|
Cornell University
4 publications, 1.16%
|
|
University of Perugia
4 publications, 1.16%
|
|
Harvard University
4 publications, 1.16%
|
|
University of Washington
4 publications, 1.16%
|
|
Mayo Clinic
4 publications, 1.16%
|
|
King Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Centre
3 publications, 0.87%
|
|
University College London
3 publications, 0.87%
|
|
University of Palermo
3 publications, 0.87%
|
|
Drexel University
3 publications, 0.87%
|
|
Johns Hopkins University
3 publications, 0.87%
|
|
University of Bari Aldo Moro
3 publications, 0.87%
|
|
S. Orsola-Malpighi Polyclinic
3 publications, 0.87%
|
|
Regina Elena National Cancer Institute
3 publications, 0.87%
|
|
Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria San Giovanni Battista
3 publications, 0.87%
|
|
University of Hong Kong
3 publications, 0.87%
|
|
Case Western Reserve University
3 publications, 0.87%
|
|
Brigham and Women's Hospital
3 publications, 0.87%
|
|
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
3 publications, 0.87%
|
|
University of Michigan
3 publications, 0.87%
|
|
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center
3 publications, 0.87%
|
|
Addis Ababa University
3 publications, 0.87%
|
|
University of Colorado Denver
3 publications, 0.87%
|
|
H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute
3 publications, 0.87%
|
|
Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre
3 publications, 0.87%
|
|
King Saud University
2 publications, 0.58%
|
|
Prince Sultan Military Medical City
2 publications, 0.58%
|
|
Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences
2 publications, 0.58%
|
|
Jain University
2 publications, 0.58%
|
|
University of Milan
2 publications, 0.58%
|
|
Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust
2 publications, 0.58%
|
|
Sorbonne University
2 publications, 0.58%
|
|
University of Sydney
2 publications, 0.58%
|
|
University of Siena
2 publications, 0.58%
|
|
University of Sassari
2 publications, 0.58%
|
|
Dalhousie University
2 publications, 0.58%
|
|
University of Calabar
2 publications, 0.58%
|
|
Obafemi Awolowo University
2 publications, 0.58%
|
|
Northwestern University
2 publications, 0.58%
|
|
New York University
2 publications, 0.58%
|
|
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
2 publications, 0.58%
|
|
University of California, Los Angeles
2 publications, 0.58%
|
|
University of California, San Diego
2 publications, 0.58%
|
|
University of Chicago
2 publications, 0.58%
|
|
Keio University
2 publications, 0.58%
|
|
University of South Florida
2 publications, 0.58%
|
|
Korle-Bu Teaching Hospital
2 publications, 0.58%
|
|
Paris Cité University
2 publications, 0.58%
|
|
Baylor College of Medicine
2 publications, 0.58%
|
|
University of Health and Allied Sciences
2 publications, 0.58%
|
|
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center
2 publications, 0.58%
|
|
University Cancer Center Hamburg
2 publications, 0.58%
|
|
Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul
2 publications, 0.58%
|
|
Leipzig University
2 publications, 0.58%
|
|
Medical College of Wisconsin
2 publications, 0.58%
|
|
University of Wisconsin–Madison
2 publications, 0.58%
|
|
Universidade Estadual de Campinas
2 publications, 0.58%
|
|
Mayo Clinic Arizona
2 publications, 0.58%
|
|
Houston Methodist Hospital
2 publications, 0.58%
|
|
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
2 publications, 0.58%
|
|
University of Sussex
2 publications, 0.58%
|
|
University of Florida
2 publications, 0.58%
|
|
Complejo Hospitalario de Salamanca
2 publications, 0.58%
|
|
University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston
2 publications, 0.58%
|
|
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
2 publications, 0.58%
|
|
University of Tennessee Health Science Center
2 publications, 0.58%
|
|
Instituto Nacional do Câncer
2 publications, 0.58%
|
|
Theodor Bilharz Research Institute
2 publications, 0.58%
|
|
Jimma University
2 publications, 0.58%
|
|
University of Nairobi
2 publications, 0.58%
|
|
SIMAD University (Somali Institute of Management and Administration Development)
2 publications, 0.58%
|
|
Maseno University
2 publications, 0.58%
|
|
Mekelle University
2 publications, 0.58%
|
|
Ogarev Mordovia State University
1 publication, 0.29%
|
|
Moscow Regional Research and Clinical Institute
1 publication, 0.29%
|
|
Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University
1 publication, 0.29%
|
|
National Research Center Institute of Immunology of the Federal Medical Biological Agency of Russia
1 publication, 0.29%
|
|
A.S. Loginov Moscow Clinical Scientific Centre
1 publication, 0.29%
|
|
Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University
1 publication, 0.29%
|
|
Umm al-Qura University
1 publication, 0.29%
|
|
Gazi University
1 publication, 0.29%
|
|
Isfahan University of Medical Sciences
1 publication, 0.29%
|
|
All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi
1 publication, 0.29%
|
|
All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar
1 publication, 0.29%
|
|
Aga Khan University
1 publication, 0.29%
|
|
University of Hyderabad
1 publication, 0.29%
|
|
Selcuk University
1 publication, 0.29%
|
|
Cukurova University
1 publication, 0.29%
|
|
Payame Noor University
1 publication, 0.29%
|
|
King George's Medical University
1 publication, 0.29%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
|
Publishing organizations in 5 years
1
2
3
|
|
University of Cape Coast
3 publications, 4.55%
|
|
Drexel University
2 publications, 3.03%
|
|
New York University
2 publications, 3.03%
|
|
University of Ghana
2 publications, 3.03%
|
|
University of Health and Allied Sciences
2 publications, 3.03%
|
|
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
2 publications, 3.03%
|
|
Mansoura University
2 publications, 3.03%
|
|
Jimma University
2 publications, 3.03%
|
|
University of Nairobi
2 publications, 3.03%
|
|
SIMAD University (Somali Institute of Management and Administration Development)
2 publications, 3.03%
|
|
Maseno University
2 publications, 3.03%
|
|
Mekelle University
2 publications, 3.03%
|
|
King Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Centre
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
Isfahan University of Medical Sciences
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
Sapienza University of Rome
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
University of Milan
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
University of Palermo
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
University of Cagliari
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
University of Pisa
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
Humanitas University
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
University of Pavia
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
University of Bari Aldo Moro
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
Veneto Institute of Oncology
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
University of Eastern Piedmont Amadeo Avogadro
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
Regina Elena National Cancer Institute
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
San Camillo Forlanini Hospital
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
University of KwaZulu-Natal
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
National Health Laboratory Services
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
MedStar Georgetown University Hospital
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
Boston University
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
Brawijaya University
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
University of Calabar
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
University of Dodoma
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
New York University Langone Health
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
Brigham and Women's Hospital
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
Harbor–UCLA Medical Center
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
Olive View–UCLA Medical Center
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
University of California, San Diego
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
Moores Cancer Center
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
University of Arizona
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
Keio University
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
Kobe University Hospital
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
University Hospital Würzburg
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
University Medical Center Göttingen
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
Leipzig University
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
University of Tokyo
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
Kumamoto University
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
University of Porto
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
Universidade Estadual de Campinas
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
Mayo Clinic Arizona
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
Mayo Clinic in Florida
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
Mayo Clinic
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
University of Calgary
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
University of Oviedo
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
Cleveland Clinic Florida
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
Cleveland Clinic
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
Complejo Hospitalario de Salamanca
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
University of Tennessee Health Science Center
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
Hospital Universitario De Cabueñes
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
Al-Neelain University
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
University of Gondar
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
Kisii University
1 publication, 1.52%
|
|
Show all (39 more) | |
1
2
3
|
Publishing countries
20
40
60
80
100
120
|
|
USA
|
USA, 115, 33.33%
USA
115 publications, 33.33%
|
Italy
|
Italy, 35, 10.14%
Italy
35 publications, 10.14%
|
United Kingdom
|
United Kingdom, 26, 7.54%
United Kingdom
26 publications, 7.54%
|
India
|
India, 17, 4.93%
India
17 publications, 4.93%
|
France
|
France, 15, 4.35%
France
15 publications, 4.35%
|
Canada
|
Canada, 15, 4.35%
Canada
15 publications, 4.35%
|
Germany
|
Germany, 12, 3.48%
Germany
12 publications, 3.48%
|
Ghana
|
Ghana, 12, 3.48%
Ghana
12 publications, 3.48%
|
Egypt
|
Egypt, 10, 2.9%
Egypt
10 publications, 2.9%
|
Spain
|
Spain, 10, 2.9%
Spain
10 publications, 2.9%
|
Brazil
|
Brazil, 9, 2.61%
Brazil
9 publications, 2.61%
|
Ethiopia
|
Ethiopia, 9, 2.61%
Ethiopia
9 publications, 2.61%
|
Japan
|
Japan, 9, 2.61%
Japan
9 publications, 2.61%
|
Greece
|
Greece, 7, 2.03%
Greece
7 publications, 2.03%
|
Côte d'Ivoire
|
Côte d'Ivoire, 7, 2.03%
Côte d'Ivoire
7 publications, 2.03%
|
Saudi Arabia
|
Saudi Arabia, 7, 2.03%
Saudi Arabia
7 publications, 2.03%
|
Nigeria
|
Nigeria, 6, 1.74%
Nigeria
6 publications, 1.74%
|
Thailand
|
Thailand, 6, 1.74%
Thailand
6 publications, 1.74%
|
Turkey
|
Turkey, 6, 1.74%
Turkey
6 publications, 1.74%
|
Australia
|
Australia, 5, 1.45%
Australia
5 publications, 1.45%
|
Belgium
|
Belgium, 5, 1.45%
Belgium
5 publications, 1.45%
|
China
|
China, 4, 1.16%
China
4 publications, 1.16%
|
Cameroon
|
Cameroon, 4, 1.16%
Cameroon
4 publications, 1.16%
|
Switzerland
|
Switzerland, 4, 1.16%
Switzerland
4 publications, 1.16%
|
Russia
|
Russia, 3, 0.87%
Russia
3 publications, 0.87%
|
Kenya
|
Kenya, 3, 0.87%
Kenya
3 publications, 0.87%
|
Pakistan
|
Pakistan, 3, 0.87%
Pakistan
3 publications, 0.87%
|
Singapore
|
Singapore, 3, 0.87%
Singapore
3 publications, 0.87%
|
Portugal
|
Portugal, 2, 0.58%
Portugal
2 publications, 0.58%
|
Israel
|
Israel, 2, 0.58%
Israel
2 publications, 0.58%
|
Indonesia
|
Indonesia, 2, 0.58%
Indonesia
2 publications, 0.58%
|
Iran
|
Iran, 2, 0.58%
Iran
2 publications, 0.58%
|
Netherlands
|
Netherlands, 2, 0.58%
Netherlands
2 publications, 0.58%
|
Palestine
|
Palestine, 2, 0.58%
Palestine
2 publications, 0.58%
|
Senegal
|
Senegal, 2, 0.58%
Senegal
2 publications, 0.58%
|
Somalia
|
Somalia, 2, 0.58%
Somalia
2 publications, 0.58%
|
Sudan
|
Sudan, 2, 0.58%
Sudan
2 publications, 0.58%
|
Tanzania
|
Tanzania, 2, 0.58%
Tanzania
2 publications, 0.58%
|
South Africa
|
South Africa, 2, 0.58%
South Africa
2 publications, 0.58%
|
Argentina
|
Argentina, 1, 0.29%
Argentina
1 publication, 0.29%
|
Bahrain
|
Bahrain, 1, 0.29%
Bahrain
1 publication, 0.29%
|
Bulgaria
|
Bulgaria, 1, 0.29%
Bulgaria
1 publication, 0.29%
|
Burkina Faso
|
Burkina Faso, 1, 0.29%
Burkina Faso
1 publication, 0.29%
|
Colombia
|
Colombia, 1, 0.29%
Colombia
1 publication, 0.29%
|
Lebanon
|
Lebanon, 1, 0.29%
Lebanon
1 publication, 0.29%
|
Luxembourg
|
Luxembourg, 1, 0.29%
Luxembourg
1 publication, 0.29%
|
Malaysia
|
Malaysia, 1, 0.29%
Malaysia
1 publication, 0.29%
|
Mali
|
Mali, 1, 0.29%
Mali
1 publication, 0.29%
|
Mexico
|
Mexico, 1, 0.29%
Mexico
1 publication, 0.29%
|
Myanmar
|
Myanmar, 1, 0.29%
Myanmar
1 publication, 0.29%
|
New Zealand
|
New Zealand, 1, 0.29%
New Zealand
1 publication, 0.29%
|
Oman
|
Oman, 1, 0.29%
Oman
1 publication, 0.29%
|
Slovenia
|
Slovenia, 1, 0.29%
Slovenia
1 publication, 0.29%
|
Tunisia
|
Tunisia, 1, 0.29%
Tunisia
1 publication, 0.29%
|
Philippines
|
Philippines, 1, 0.29%
Philippines
1 publication, 0.29%
|
Sweden
|
Sweden, 1, 0.29%
Sweden
1 publication, 0.29%
|
Show all (26 more) | |
20
40
60
80
100
120
|
Publishing countries in 5 years
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
|
|
USA
|
USA, 15, 22.73%
USA
15 publications, 22.73%
|
Ghana
|
Ghana, 7, 10.61%
Ghana
7 publications, 10.61%
|
Ethiopia
|
Ethiopia, 6, 9.09%
Ethiopia
6 publications, 9.09%
|
Spain
|
Spain, 3, 4.55%
Spain
3 publications, 4.55%
|
Cameroon
|
Cameroon, 3, 4.55%
Cameroon
3 publications, 4.55%
|
Kenya
|
Kenya, 3, 4.55%
Kenya
3 publications, 4.55%
|
Japan
|
Japan, 3, 4.55%
Japan
3 publications, 4.55%
|
Germany
|
Germany, 2, 3.03%
Germany
2 publications, 3.03%
|
Portugal
|
Portugal, 2, 3.03%
Portugal
2 publications, 3.03%
|
Brazil
|
Brazil, 2, 3.03%
Brazil
2 publications, 3.03%
|
Egypt
|
Egypt, 2, 3.03%
Egypt
2 publications, 3.03%
|
Italy
|
Italy, 2, 3.03%
Italy
2 publications, 3.03%
|
Canada
|
Canada, 2, 3.03%
Canada
2 publications, 3.03%
|
Côte d'Ivoire
|
Côte d'Ivoire, 2, 3.03%
Côte d'Ivoire
2 publications, 3.03%
|
Somalia
|
Somalia, 2, 3.03%
Somalia
2 publications, 3.03%
|
Sudan
|
Sudan, 2, 3.03%
Sudan
2 publications, 3.03%
|
Tanzania
|
Tanzania, 2, 3.03%
Tanzania
2 publications, 3.03%
|
France
|
France, 1, 1.52%
France
1 publication, 1.52%
|
Australia
|
Australia, 1, 1.52%
Australia
1 publication, 1.52%
|
United Kingdom
|
United Kingdom, 1, 1.52%
United Kingdom
1 publication, 1.52%
|
Greece
|
Greece, 1, 1.52%
Greece
1 publication, 1.52%
|
India
|
India, 1, 1.52%
India
1 publication, 1.52%
|
Indonesia
|
Indonesia, 1, 1.52%
Indonesia
1 publication, 1.52%
|
Iran
|
Iran, 1, 1.52%
Iran
1 publication, 1.52%
|
Myanmar
|
Myanmar, 1, 1.52%
Myanmar
1 publication, 1.52%
|
Nigeria
|
Nigeria, 1, 1.52%
Nigeria
1 publication, 1.52%
|
Pakistan
|
Pakistan, 1, 1.52%
Pakistan
1 publication, 1.52%
|
Saudi Arabia
|
Saudi Arabia, 1, 1.52%
Saudi Arabia
1 publication, 1.52%
|
Senegal
|
Senegal, 1, 1.52%
Senegal
1 publication, 1.52%
|
Thailand
|
Thailand, 1, 1.52%
Thailand
1 publication, 1.52%
|
South Africa
|
South Africa, 1, 1.52%
South Africa
1 publication, 1.52%
|
Show all (1 more) | |
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
|