Frontiers of Earth Science
Are you a researcher?
Create a profile to get free access to personal recommendations for colleagues and new articles.
SCImago
Q2
WOS
Q3
Impact factor
1.8
SJR
0.441
CiteScore
3.5
Categories
Earth and Planetary Sciences (miscellaneous)
Areas
Earth and Planetary Sciences
Years of issue
2007-2025
journal names
Frontiers of Earth Science
FRONT EARTH SCI-PRC
Top-3 citing journals

Remote Sensing
(391 citations)

Frontiers of Earth Science
(279 citations)

Sustainability
(223 citations)
Top-3 organizations

Beijing Normal University
(60 publications)

China University of Mining and Technology
(55 publications)

University of Chinese Academy of Sciences
(52 publications)

China University of Mining and Technology
(39 publications)

China University of Geosciences (Beijing)
(29 publications)

University of Chinese Academy of Sciences
(15 publications)
Top-3 countries
Most cited in 5 years
Found
Publications found: 607
Q3

An adaptive anti-predatory algorithm-based model to enhance the efficiency of software effort estimation
Sharma A., Rajpoot D.S.
Q3
Innovations in Systems and Software Engineering
,
2025
,
citations by CoLab: 0

Q3

Access-adaptive priority search tree
Massa H., Uhlmann J.
In this paper we introduce the notion of explicit worst-case bounded adaptive algorithms for applications with fixed process-completion requirements. Such applications demand that a process be guaranteed to complete within an established time interval while adaptively reducing computational overhead during that interval, e.g., so as to reduce total energy usage. Our principal contribution is the Access-Adaptive Priority Search Tree (AAPST), which can provide efficient distribution-sensitive performance comparable to the splay tree, but do so within strict—and $$O(\log n)$$ optimal—worst-case per-query bounds. More specifically, while the splay tree is conjectured to offer optimal adaptive amortized query complexity, it may require O(n) for individual queries, whereas the AAPST offers competitive distribution-sensitive performance with strict $$O(\log n)$$ time complexity. This makes the AAPST more suitable for certain interactive (e.g., online and real-time) applications such as space system modules with reliability constraints involving rigid process-completion time intervals with secondary energy-minimization incentives.
Q3

Discovering smell relations between temporary field and design smells: an empirical analysis
Gupta R.
Code smells have an adverse impact on the quality of source code. Martin Fowler initially identified a set of 22 code smells. Since the term "code smell", there have been multiple attempts to understand them through their detection and to discover relationships between them using correlation and other approaches. The literature demonstrates multiple studies in which code smells have been found to exhibit relationships with other code smells. Nevertheless, the temporary field is one of the 22 code smells that has not been analysed to determine its relationship with other code smells. It is important to consider temporary field, as it has a detrimental impact on the maintainability of the source code. The study has conducted a review of the 7 smell relations identified by Pietrzak and Walter and proposed 3 new smell relations. It has evaluated these smell relations between temporary field and 17 design smells in 10 popular open-source Java applications that are widely cited in the literature and publicly accessible. The study has also done a correlation analysis of temporary field with 17 design smells. All code smells in the study were detected using an open-source tool called "TFfinder". The study reveals 18 significant smell relations between temporary field and design smells. Utilization of smell relations can facilitate an in-depth comprehension of code smells and aid in the prioritization of code smells for refactoring purposes. In addition, it can assist a developer in identifying classes that need more maintenance effort and impact the maintainability of the code.
Q3

Towards variability process model for agile product line configuration engineering
Kiani A.A., Hafeez Y., Hashmi A.S., Iqbal J.
Integration of Software Product Line (SPL) and Agile Software Development (ASD) results in a new direction called Agile Product Line Engineering (APLE). Even though some studies in the literature have suggested efficient methods for integrating ASD and SPL, they have not yet addressed every facet of APLE’s characteristics, and these methods hardly ever take into account the SPL configuration process or the reuse of software resources when developing new products or expanding existing product lines. Despite extensive research efforts, a unified and holistic APLE methodology that integrates agile concepts across both Application Engineering (AE) and Domain Engineering (DE) phases remains elusive. Given this, we suggest a new APLE methodology to integrate ASD and SPL more effectively. The suggested approach iteratively builds the product line, and the system architecture grows over time. We have outlined a new variability mechanism called Variability on DemAnd (VODA) to boost the SPL configuration process. We performed the two-phased evaluation. (1) In the first phase, we considered empirical investigation to validate the proposed APLE methodology. We performed a randomized experiment to compare the proposed approach to a traditional system that typically applies agile principles within a proactive SPL but lacks agile-based variability mechanisms, dynamic product line architectures, and robust feedback. (2) In second phase, the proposed algorithm is tested for efficiency, performance, and effectiveness. We conduct the experiments to evaluate the proposed process (VODA) and obtained results are evaluated with Precision, Recall, Accuracy, and F-Measure. The findings indicate that the suggested approach offers benefits such as adaptable demand management, improved software resource reuse, lower configuration costs, and a shorter time to market. The second step (i.e. second phase of evaluation) results confirm the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm. The average precision value is 0.887, the average Recall value is 0.884 and the average F-Measure value is 0.878%.
Q3

Anomaly detection in software-defined networking utilizing multi-verse deer hunting optimization enabled deep q-network for traffic flow rate prediction
Raja N.M., Vegad S.
For the consolidated management and supervising of massive networks, software-defined networking (SDN) is seen to be the best option. Nonetheless, it should be highlighted that SDN design experiences the same security problems as conventional networks. To bridge this gap, an efficient model for anomaly detection (AD) in SDN named Multi-verse Deer Hunting Optimization (MVDHO) is introduced. Firstly, SDN nodes are simulated. After that, SDN switches are controlled by the control plane to identify the condition of switches like ON, IDLE, or OFF conditions based on the detection plane. Secondly, the detection plane module consists of two modules, such traffic flow detection and AD. In the detection plane, the SDN switch flow rate is recorded in the form of time-series data and the condition of the switch is predicted based on time-series data using Deep Long short-term memory (LSTM). Similarly, in AD, the behaviour of the communication is recorded as a log file by extracting the significant features. Moreover, appropriate features are selected by mutual information. Finally, the detection of anomaly is performed employing Deep Q-Network, which is trained using MVDHO. Here, MVDHO is obtained by the combination of a Multi-verse Optimizer (MVO) and Deer Hunting Optimization Algorithm (DHOA). The detected anomalies are Denial of Service (DoS), Buffer_overflow, Guess_password, SQL attack and Named attack. The metrics utilized in this research namely, Traffic flow detection accuracy (TFDA), accuracy, true positive rate (TPR), and true negative rate (TNR) attained maximum values with 91.6%, 94.7%, 90.8%, and 86.5%, and also, the minimum value of computational time is 52.99s.
Q3

Taming the frame problem: an automated approach for robust UML class diagram specification and verification
Rosales Viesca A., Al Lail M.
AbstractIt is vital to have precise specifications and verification of UML class diagrams to ensure the correctness of complex software systems. However, current specification and verification methods often face a challenge known as the frame problem. This problem occurs due to incomplete operation specifications that can lead to unintended system behavior. To tackle this issue, we have developed an automated solution to autonomously identify and define frame conditions, effectively minimizing the frame problem’s impact on class diagram verification. Frame conditions are explicit contracts that meticulously outline the permissible effects of operations within the system. Our approach carefully analyzes the behavioral blueprint of a class diagram and extracts crucial information to create these conditions. Through rigorous evaluations encompassing diverse UML diagrams and simulated execution scenarios, we have demonstrated the effectiveness of our approach in preventing unintended system behavior caused by the frame problem. We have integrated the approach into the Temporal Property Validator tool, empowering practitioners to leverage its benefits for practical class diagram specification and verification.
Q3

Comparative analysis of various fuzzy clustering algorithms for linearly and non-linearly separable data
Sethia K., Gosain A., Singh J.
Fuzzy clustering is an unsupervised technique in which an object belongs to more than one cluster. In this paper, we have implemented and compared eight fuzzy clustering algorithms, FCM, IFCM, KFCM, and KIFCM with the Euclidean distance metric and same algorithms with the weighted mean distance metric, i.e., FCM-ϭ, IFCM-ϭ, KFCM-ϭ, and KIFCM-ϭ. None of the previous reviews in the literature have assessed the effectiveness of these algorithms on linearly and nonlinearly separable data. So, in this comparative analysis, we are focusing on data separability, also considering other factors such as noise-free and noisy data, the presence, and absence of outliers (if any), as well as clusters of varied size, shape, and density. We have conducted the experiment on twelve 2-D synthetic datasets and five real datasets from the UCI repository. It is observed that for linearly separable data, KIFCM and IFCM-ϭ perform considerably better in the presence of noise and outliers whereas for non-linearly separable data, KFCM, KFCM-ϭ, KIFCM, and KIFCM-ϭ perform better.
Q3

A Multimodal conceptual framework to achieve automated software evolution for context-rich intelligent applications
Yue S.
AbstractWhile AI is extensively transforming Software Engineering (SE) fields, SE is still in need of a framework to consider overall all phases to facilitate Automated Software Evolution (ASEv), particularly for intelligent applications that are context-rich instead of conquering each division independently. Its complexity comes from the intricacy of the intelligent applications, the heterogeneity of the data sources, and the constant changes in the context. This study proposes a conceptual framework for achieving automated software evolution, emphasizing the importance of multimodality learning. A Selective Sequential Scope Model (3 S) model is developed based on the conceptual framework, and it can be used to categorize existing and future research when it covers different SE phases and multimodal learning tasks. This research is a preliminary step toward the blueprint of a higher-level ASEv. The proposed conceptual framework can act as a practical guideline for practitioners to prepare themselves for diving into this area. Although the study is about intelligent applications, the framework and analysis methods may be adapted for other types of software as AI brings more intelligence into their life cycles.
Q3

Design and application of a novel Improved Fire Hawk Optimization technique-tuned ANFIS for optimal regulation of energy of a composite microgrid system
Bandopadhyay J., Roy P.K.
The operation of hybrid microgrid systems without sufficient control can result in system synchronization issues within renewable energy sources (RESs) and the power network. This impact on the synchronization can drastically affect the whole equilibrium, stability, and reliability. Hence, to eliminate such issues, this paper has focussed on the development of a novel, improved fire hawk optimization technique (IFHOT) for preparing three ANFIS regulators for a stable energy management system of a utility network-connected hybrid non-conventional system. The hybrid system features the combination of a battery unit + wind power generator (W) + photovoltaic (PV) array + fuel cell (FC) stack. The IFHOT-trained ANFIS-based monitoring control system determines the switching of the various RESs, thereby regulating the power they generate. Load power requirement, grid power need, and condition of the battery, also known as SOC, are considered for the operation of the ANFIS-based management system. The research work carried out here aims to optimize the switching and power generation of the various RESs. It also ensures fast instability mitigation that can be observed from the voltage, current, and power graphs. Furthermore, successful comparisons with other intelligent controllers, such as fire hawk optimization technique (FHOT) tuned ANFIS and circle search algorithm (CSA) tuned ANFIS, are executed in the proposed work. Concerning voltage, current, power control and harmonics alleviation, IFHOT-tuned ANFIS has yielded superior results compared to FHOT-tuned ANFIS and CSA-tuned ANFIS. All the experiments have been performed on the MATLAB/SIMULINK platform.
Q3

Publisher Correction: Distributed Petri nets for model-driven verifiable robotic applications in ROS
Ebert S., Mey J., Schöne R., Götz S., Aßmann U.
Q3
Innovations in Systems and Software Engineering
,
2024
,
citations by CoLab: 0

Q3

Empowering model repair: a rule-based approach to graph repair without side effects—extended version
Lauer A., Kosiol J., Taentzer G.
AbstractWorking with models can lead to inconsistencies, e.g., due to erroneous or contradictory actions during concurrent modeling processes. Modern modeling environments typically tolerate inconsistencies and support their detection. However, at a later stage of development, models are expected to be consistent, meaning their inconsistencies should be considered and resolved. The process of resolving model inconsistencies is commonly referred to as model repair. Our approach to model repair is semi-automatic in the sense that the repair tool computes appropriate repair plans and the modeler decides which path to take. The speciality of our approach is that the repair process can register any small improvement in the model. This allows the interaction with the user to be optimized, resulting in an approach with a high level of automation on the one hand and flexible configuration options on the other. The approach focuses on providing repair plans that do not have side effects, i.e., the computed repair plans do not inadvertently introduce a new inconsistency of already repaired constraints into the model. Since models often have a graph-like structure, we present our approach to model repair based on graphs. Our approach is completely formal—we use the algebraic graph transformation approach to prove its correctness. We also present a prototype implementation of our repair approach based on the Eclipse Modeling Framework and Henshin, a model transformation engine based on graph transformation, to perform the actual model repair. A first performance evaluation shows that graphs with up to 1000 nodes can be repaired in about 10 s.
Q3

Classification of functional and nonfunctional requirements based on convolutional neural network with flower pollination optimizer
Sonawane S.N., Puthran S.M.
Accurate and efficient classification of software requirements is crucial for the success of system, as functional and nonfunctional requirements define the fundamental characteristics and constraints of a system. Documenting software requirements in natural language can lead to uncertainties such as ambiguity, inconsistency, or poor readability. Additionally, manual extraction of requirements can be tedious and prone to errors due to the need for precise interpretation, which increases the risk of miscommunication and mistakes during the development process. So, it is vital to use effective techniques like natural language processing to clearly understand the requirements. This paper proposes the use of deep learning models in conjunction with natural language processing, followed by flower pollination optimizer, to automate the classification task. The methodology leverages natural language processing to extract meaningful features used to train a convolutional neural network model. The convolution neural network model is enhanced using the flower pollination optimizer algorithm to ensure better convergence. The approach is implemented using an industry SmartNet dataset. To tackle the challenge of class imbalance, the synthetic minority oversampling technique is used. The approach is validated on both balanced and unbalanced datasets to demonstrate its effectiveness. Results show that the CNN-FPO framework performs exceptionally well, with accuracies ranging between 94.48% and 97.13% for balanced and 87.45% to 98% for unbalanced dataset.
Q3

Optimization of time-dependent MORRAP for series–parallel system using improved NSGA-II in interval environment
De S.
This research proposes a novel time-dependent interval-valued function-based multi-objective reliability redundancy allocation problem (TIVF-MORRAP) focused on multi-stage series–parallel systems. Time is a critical factor in assessing system reliability and cost. The novel contribution of this study is the use of an interval-valued function (IVF) approach to manage uncertainties in component reliability, cost, and repair costs, with time as a key variable. The objective is to boost system reliability and minimize costs over time by efficiently allocating redundant components at each stage. The process ensures a restricted allocation of duplicates across all stages and the entire system. In this problem the reduction in component reliability and cost are modeled by the varying radius length along the inverse logarithmic spiral over time. Likewise, the escalation in component repair costs is depicted by the logarithmic spiral. In this study, NSGA-II-AGDV is introduced, a multi-objective evolutionary algorithm (MOEA) that combines NSGA-II (Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm-II) with agglomerative and divisive clustering algorithms and the Topsis method to solve the problem. Unlike NSGA-II, which utilizes crowding distance, many researchers have adopted a single clustering technique to improve diversity and limit the solution set size. The proposed algorithm integrates two clustering techniques, enhancing functionality while also reducing execution time. A benchmark problem verifies the proposed method, showing enhanced performance and better convergence to true Pareto optimal solutions compared to NSGA-II and NSGA-II with crowding distance elimination (NSGA-II-CDE) across various time values.
Q3

ARIA-QA: AI-agent based requirements inspection and analysis through question answering
Biswas C., Das S.
Due to their predominant use of natural language, requirements are prone to defects like inconsistency and incompleteness. Consequently, quality assurance processes are commonly applied to requirements manually. However, manual execution of these processes can be laborious and may inadvertently overlook critical quality issues due to time and budget constraints. This paper introduces ARIA, an innovative question–answering (QA) approach designed to automate support for stakeholders, including requirements engineers, during the analysis of NL requirements. The ability to ask questions and get immediate answers is extremely useful in many quality assurance situations, especially for incompleteness detection. The challenge of automating the answering of requirements-related questions is considerable, given the potential scope of the search for answers extending beyond the provided requirements specification. To overcome this challenge, ARIA integrates support for mining external domain knowledge resources like internet search results. Evaluation of seven diverse use cases drawn from the PURE dataset demonstrates ARIA’s robustness and applicability across a range of real-life scenarios, highlighting its potential to significantly improve the quality and effectiveness of requirements analysis processes. This work represents one of the initial endeavors to seamlessly blend QA and external domain knowledge, effectively addressing complexities in requirements engineering through a flexible framework designed to readily integrate with evolving, advanced-level Generative LLMs.
Q3

A modified ResNet152v2 framework for bird species classification
Adhikari N., Bhattacharya S., Sultana M.
Ornithology, the study of birds, plays a crucial role in understanding the complex interplay between avian species and their ecosystems, offering insights into biodiversity and global ecological systems. In recent years, the conservation of bird species has become increasingly critical, particularly as habitat degradation poses a significant threat to endangered species. Accurate identification and classification of bird species are essential components of conservation strategies. This research presents a modified ResNet152v2 framework designed to enhance the precision and efficiency of bird species classification. By leveraging advanced deep learning techniques, this framework aims to support conservation efforts by facilitating the accurate monitoring and protection of diverse avian populations. This study introduces a transfer learning approach for bird species identification using a modified ResNet152v2 framework, leveraging a publicly available dataset of 87,874 images spanning 515 bird species. The model achieved an impressive test accuracy of 97.67% and a categorical accuracy of 98.81%. A key contribution lies in the utilization of principal component analysis (PCA) for dimensionality reduction, optimizing the feature vector by 15%. Additionally, root mean squared propagation (RMSProp) was employed to enhance the feature vector. L2 regularization and dropout at the input and the subsequent layer were introduced to mitigate overfitting. The model underwent rigorous training, resulting in a minimum training loss of 0.0397 and a validation loss of 0.0044. The achieved average precision (98.66%), recall (97.73%), and F1-score (98.2%) values further validate the model’s effectiveness. This study presents a novel combination of techniques, emphasizing the integration of transfer learning, dimensionality reduction, and dropout for improved accuracy, resulting in a robust model with potential applications in ecological research and environmental monitoring.
Top-100
Citing journals
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
|
|
Remote Sensing
391 citations, 4.49%
|
|
Frontiers of Earth Science
279 citations, 3.2%
|
|
Sustainability
223 citations, 2.56%
|
|
Science of the Total Environment
176 citations, 2.02%
|
|
Water (Switzerland)
153 citations, 1.76%
|
|
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
132 citations, 1.52%
|
|
Journal of Cleaner Production
128 citations, 1.47%
|
|
Ecological Indicators
124 citations, 1.42%
|
|
Frontiers in Earth Science
104 citations, 1.19%
|
|
Journal of Hydrology
99 citations, 1.14%
|
|
Land
91 citations, 1.04%
|
|
Arabian Journal of Geosciences
72 citations, 0.83%
|
|
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
69 citations, 0.79%
|
|
Environmental Earth Sciences
67 citations, 0.77%
|
|
Scientific Reports
64 citations, 0.73%
|
|
Catena
57 citations, 0.65%
|
|
Atmosphere
57 citations, 0.65%
|
|
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
55 citations, 0.63%
|
|
Journal of Environmental Management
53 citations, 0.61%
|
|
ACS Omega
50 citations, 0.57%
|
|
Energies
50 citations, 0.57%
|
|
Forests
47 citations, 0.54%
|
|
ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information
46 citations, 0.53%
|
|
Energy & Fuels
46 citations, 0.53%
|
|
Marine and Petroleum Geology
46 citations, 0.53%
|
|
Minerals
46 citations, 0.53%
|
|
IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing
45 citations, 0.52%
|
|
Natural Hazards
44 citations, 0.51%
|
|
Frontiers in Environmental Science
44 citations, 0.51%
|
|
Journal of Asian Earth Sciences
42 citations, 0.48%
|
|
Hydrological Processes
42 citations, 0.48%
|
|
Applied Sciences (Switzerland)
41 citations, 0.47%
|
|
Atmospheric Research
40 citations, 0.46%
|
|
Sensors
38 citations, 0.44%
|
|
PLoS ONE
38 citations, 0.44%
|
|
Frontiers in Marine Science
37 citations, 0.42%
|
|
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology
37 citations, 0.42%
|
|
Water Resources Research
36 citations, 0.41%
|
|
Remote Sensing of Environment
35 citations, 0.4%
|
|
Natural Resources Research
34 citations, 0.39%
|
|
Quaternary International
34 citations, 0.39%
|
|
IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing
34 citations, 0.39%
|
|
Energy
34 citations, 0.39%
|
|
Agriculture (Switzerland)
32 citations, 0.37%
|
|
Journal of Marine Science and Engineering
31 citations, 0.36%
|
|
Environmental Research Letters
31 citations, 0.36%
|
|
International Journal of Remote Sensing
30 citations, 0.34%
|
|
Environmental Pollution
30 citations, 0.34%
|
|
Geological Journal
29 citations, 0.33%
|
|
Geocarto International
29 citations, 0.33%
|
|
Journal of Mountain Science
28 citations, 0.32%
|
|
Journal of Geographical Sciences
28 citations, 0.32%
|
|
Agronomy
27 citations, 0.31%
|
|
Earth Science Informatics
27 citations, 0.31%
|
|
Heliyon
27 citations, 0.31%
|
|
Hydrology and Earth System Sciences
25 citations, 0.29%
|
|
Geomorphology
25 citations, 0.29%
|
|
Marine Pollution Bulletin
24 citations, 0.28%
|
|
International Journal of Climatology
24 citations, 0.28%
|
|
Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies
24 citations, 0.28%
|
|
Theoretical and Applied Climatology
24 citations, 0.28%
|
|
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology
23 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Geophysical Research Letters
23 citations, 0.26%
|
|
IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science
22 citations, 0.25%
|
|
Quaternary Science Reviews
22 citations, 0.25%
|
|
Ore Geology Reviews
22 citations, 0.25%
|
|
Ecological Modelling
22 citations, 0.25%
|
|
Land Use Policy
22 citations, 0.25%
|
|
Advances in Atmospheric Sciences
22 citations, 0.25%
|
|
Earth-Science Reviews
22 citations, 0.25%
|
|
Fuel
22 citations, 0.25%
|
|
IEEE Access
22 citations, 0.25%
|
|
Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres
22 citations, 0.25%
|
|
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering
21 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Climate Dynamics
21 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Journal of Geophysical Research Oceans
21 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
21 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Frontiers in Plant Science
20 citations, 0.23%
|
|
Open Geosciences
20 citations, 0.23%
|
|
Organic Geochemistry
20 citations, 0.23%
|
|
Applied Energy
20 citations, 0.23%
|
|
Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment
20 citations, 0.23%
|
|
Environment, Development and Sustainability
20 citations, 0.23%
|
|
Physics and Chemistry of the Earth
19 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
19 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Processes
19 citations, 0.22%
|
|
International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation
19 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Advances in Space Research
19 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Sustainable Cities and Society
18 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Building and Environment
18 citations, 0.21%
|
|
International Journal of Coal Geology
18 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Global Change Biology
17 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Science China Earth Sciences
17 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Wetlands
17 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Water Research
17 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk
17 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Land Degradation and Development
17 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Environmental Science & Technology
17 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Journal of Geophysical Research Biogeosciences
17 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Agricultural Water Management
16 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
|
Citing publishers
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
|
|
Elsevier
2547 citations, 29.24%
|
|
Springer Nature
1571 citations, 18.04%
|
|
MDPI
1524 citations, 17.5%
|
|
Wiley
458 citations, 5.26%
|
|
Taylor & Francis
323 citations, 3.71%
|
|
Higher Education Press
265 citations, 3.04%
|
|
Frontiers Media S.A.
257 citations, 2.95%
|
|
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
217 citations, 2.49%
|
|
American Chemical Society (ACS)
123 citations, 1.41%
|
|
Copernicus
119 citations, 1.37%
|
|
American Geophysical Union
94 citations, 1.08%
|
|
Hindawi Limited
87 citations, 1%
|
|
IOP Publishing
85 citations, 0.98%
|
|
SAGE
52 citations, 0.6%
|
|
IWA Publishing
50 citations, 0.57%
|
|
Cambridge University Press
41 citations, 0.47%
|
|
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
40 citations, 0.46%
|
|
Walter de Gruyter
39 citations, 0.45%
|
|
American Meteorological Society
39 citations, 0.45%
|
|
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
28 citations, 0.32%
|
|
Oxford University Press
23 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Science in China Press
23 citations, 0.26%
|
|
AIP Publishing
20 citations, 0.23%
|
|
Pleiades Publishing
19 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
18 citations, 0.21%
|
|
SPIE-Intl Soc Optical Eng
18 citations, 0.21%
|
|
EDP Sciences
16 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Emerald
13 citations, 0.15%
|
|
PeerJ
13 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Geological Society of London
12 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Research Square Platform LLC
11 citations, 0.13%
|
|
China Meteorological Press
10 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)
9 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Society of Exploration Geophysicists
9 citations, 0.1%
|
|
International Research and Training Center on Erosion and Sedimentation and China Water and Power Press
9 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Inter-Research Science Center
9 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Scientific Research Publishing
9 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Thomas Telford
7 citations, 0.08%
|
|
Institute of Geographic Science and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences
7 citations, 0.08%
|
|
IOS Press
6 citations, 0.07%
|
|
Trans Tech Publications
6 citations, 0.07%
|
|
University of Chicago Press
6 citations, 0.07%
|
|
Soil Science Society of America
6 citations, 0.07%
|
|
China Science Publishing & Media
6 citations, 0.07%
|
|
IGI Global
6 citations, 0.07%
|
|
IntechOpen
6 citations, 0.07%
|
|
World Scientific
5 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET)
5 citations, 0.06%
|
|
American Society for Microbiology
5 citations, 0.06%
|
|
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
5 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
5 citations, 0.06%
|
|
5 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Seismological Society of America (SSA)
5 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Canadian Science Publishing
5 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)
4 citations, 0.05%
|
|
King Saud University
4 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Mary Ann Liebert
4 citations, 0.05%
|
|
4 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Northeast Forestry University
4 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Social Science Electronic Publishing
4 citations, 0.05%
|
|
National Library of Serbia
4 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Hans Publishers
4 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Optica Publishing Group
3 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Pensoft Publishers
3 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Geological Society of America
3 citations, 0.03%
|
|
The Paleontological Society of Japan
3 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Coastal Education & Research Foundation, Inc.
3 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Society of Petroleum Engineers
3 citations, 0.03%
|
|
SciELO
3 citations, 0.03%
|
|
3 citations, 0.03%
|
|
GeoScienceWorld
3 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Tech Science Press
3 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Russian Geographical Society
3 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.
2 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Institute of Mathematical Statistics
2 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Asian Network for Scientific Information
2 citations, 0.02%
|
|
American Institute of Mathematical Sciences (AIMS)
2 citations, 0.02%
|
|
2 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Magnolia Press
2 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Water Science and Engineering
2 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Centro de Estudos em Recursos Naturais Renovaveis
2 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Chinese Academy of Sciences
2 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Brazilian Journal of Water Resources
2 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Water Environment Federation
2 citations, 0.02%
|
|
The Geological Society of Korea
2 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Transport and Telecommunication Institute
2 citations, 0.02%
|
|
2 citations, 0.02%
|
|
2 citations, 0.02%
|
|
2 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Academic Journals
2 citations, 0.02%
|
|
CSIRO Publishing
2 citations, 0.02%
|
|
LLC Kartfond
2 citations, 0.02%
|
|
The Geological Society of Japan
2 citations, 0.02%
|
|
PAGEPress Publications
2 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Chinese Society for Mineralogy, Petrology, and Geochemistry
2 citations, 0.02%
|
|
American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing
1 citation, 0.01%
|
|
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
1 citation, 0.01%
|
|
John Benjamins Publishing Company
1 citation, 0.01%
|
|
Begell House
1 citation, 0.01%
|
|
Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences
1 citation, 0.01%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
|
Publishing organizations
10
20
30
40
50
60
|
|
Beijing Normal University
60 publications, 6.81%
|
|
China University of Mining and Technology
55 publications, 6.24%
|
|
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences
52 publications, 5.9%
|
|
East China Normal University
52 publications, 5.9%
|
|
China University of Geosciences (Wuhan)
49 publications, 5.56%
|
|
Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology
39 publications, 4.43%
|
|
China University of Geosciences (Beijing)
37 publications, 4.2%
|
|
Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences
37 publications, 4.2%
|
|
Colorado State University
34 publications, 3.86%
|
|
Nanjing University
21 publications, 2.38%
|
|
Peking University
20 publications, 2.27%
|
|
Shandong University of Science and Technology
19 publications, 2.16%
|
|
Lanzhou University
18 publications, 2.04%
|
|
Sun Yat-sen University
17 publications, 1.93%
|
|
China University of Petroleum (East China)
16 publications, 1.82%
|
|
Hohai University
16 publications, 1.82%
|
|
Wuhan University
14 publications, 1.59%
|
|
University of Maryland, College Park
14 publications, 1.59%
|
|
Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, Chinese Academy of Sciences
12 publications, 1.36%
|
|
Nanjing Normal University
11 publications, 1.25%
|
|
China University of Petroleum (Beijing)
11 publications, 1.25%
|
|
Dalian University of Technology
10 publications, 1.14%
|
|
Yangtze University
10 publications, 1.14%
|
|
Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences
10 publications, 1.14%
|
|
Tsinghua University
9 publications, 1.02%
|
|
Chongqing University
9 publications, 1.02%
|
|
Southwest Petroleum University
9 publications, 1.02%
|
|
Northeast Petroleum University
9 publications, 1.02%
|
|
Northwest University
9 publications, 1.02%
|
|
Chinese University of Hong Kong
9 publications, 1.02%
|
|
Sichuan University
8 publications, 0.91%
|
|
Southwest University
8 publications, 0.91%
|
|
Ocean University of China
8 publications, 0.91%
|
|
University of Göttingen
8 publications, 0.91%
|
|
China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research
8 publications, 0.91%
|
|
Fudan University
7 publications, 0.79%
|
|
Tongji University
7 publications, 0.79%
|
|
Guangdong Ocean University
7 publications, 0.79%
|
|
Xiamen University
7 publications, 0.79%
|
|
Anhui University of Science and Technology
7 publications, 0.79%
|
|
Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences
7 publications, 0.79%
|
|
Fuzhou University
6 publications, 0.68%
|
|
Renmin University of China
6 publications, 0.68%
|
|
Tianjin University
6 publications, 0.68%
|
|
Liaoning Technical University
6 publications, 0.68%
|
|
University of Colorado Boulder
6 publications, 0.68%
|
|
Lomonosov Moscow State University
5 publications, 0.57%
|
|
Zhejiang University
5 publications, 0.57%
|
|
Beijing Forestry University
5 publications, 0.57%
|
|
China Agricultural University
5 publications, 0.57%
|
|
Guangdong University of Technology
5 publications, 0.57%
|
|
Chengdu University of Technology
5 publications, 0.57%
|
|
Chuzhou University
5 publications, 0.57%
|
|
Xi'An University of Science and Technology
5 publications, 0.57%
|
|
Jiangxi Normal University
5 publications, 0.57%
|
|
Aerospace Information Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Sciences
5 publications, 0.57%
|
|
Nanjing Institute of Geography and Limnology, Chinese Academy of Sciences
5 publications, 0.57%
|
|
Guangzhou Institute of Geochemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences
5 publications, 0.57%
|
|
Institute of Earth Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences
5 publications, 0.57%
|
|
University of Regina
5 publications, 0.57%
|
|
Xi'an Jiaotong University
4 publications, 0.45%
|
|
Nanjing Forestry University
4 publications, 0.45%
|
|
Chongqing Jiaotong University
4 publications, 0.45%
|
|
North China Electric Power University
4 publications, 0.45%
|
|
Taiyuan University of Technology
4 publications, 0.45%
|
|
Michigan State University
4 publications, 0.45%
|
|
Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University
4 publications, 0.45%
|
|
Chang'an University
4 publications, 0.45%
|
|
University of Hong Kong
4 publications, 0.45%
|
|
University of California, Los Angeles
4 publications, 0.45%
|
|
Xinjiang University
4 publications, 0.45%
|
|
National University of Defense Technology
4 publications, 0.45%
|
|
University of Wisconsin–Madison
4 publications, 0.45%
|
|
Pyrenean Institute of Ecology
4 publications, 0.45%
|
|
Islamic Azad University, Mashhad
3 publications, 0.34%
|
|
Nanjing Agricultural University
3 publications, 0.34%
|
|
Nanjing XiaoZhuang University
3 publications, 0.34%
|
|
Nanjing Hydraulic Research Institute
3 publications, 0.34%
|
|
Beijing Jiaotong University
3 publications, 0.34%
|
|
Chongqing University of Science and Technology
3 publications, 0.34%
|
|
Capital Normal University
3 publications, 0.34%
|
|
Shanghai Ocean University
3 publications, 0.34%
|
|
University of Science and Technology Beijing
3 publications, 0.34%
|
|
South China Normal University
3 publications, 0.34%
|
|
Shanghai Normal University
3 publications, 0.34%
|
|
Shanghai University
3 publications, 0.34%
|
|
Guangzhou University
3 publications, 0.34%
|
|
Florida State University
3 publications, 0.34%
|
|
Dongguan University of Technology
3 publications, 0.34%
|
|
Chengdu University of Information Technology
3 publications, 0.34%
|
|
Anhui Normal University
3 publications, 0.34%
|
|
Zhongyuan University of Technology
3 publications, 0.34%
|
|
Xi'an Shiyou University
3 publications, 0.34%
|
|
University of Melbourne
3 publications, 0.34%
|
|
Northwest A&F University
3 publications, 0.34%
|
|
Ohio State University
3 publications, 0.34%
|
|
University of Arizona
3 publications, 0.34%
|
|
Henan University of Technology
3 publications, 0.34%
|
|
Changsha University of Science and Technology
3 publications, 0.34%
|
|
University of Michigan
3 publications, 0.34%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
10
20
30
40
50
60
|
Publishing organizations in 5 years
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
|
|
China University of Mining and Technology
39 publications, 11.71%
|
|
China University of Geosciences (Beijing)
29 publications, 8.71%
|
|
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences
15 publications, 4.5%
|
|
Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology
15 publications, 4.5%
|
|
China University of Petroleum (East China)
13 publications, 3.9%
|
|
China University of Geosciences (Wuhan)
11 publications, 3.3%
|
|
Shandong University of Science and Technology
11 publications, 3.3%
|
|
Chongqing University
9 publications, 2.7%
|
|
Yangtze University
9 publications, 2.7%
|
|
Northeast Petroleum University
9 publications, 2.7%
|
|
Sichuan University
7 publications, 2.1%
|
|
Sun Yat-sen University
7 publications, 2.1%
|
|
East China Normal University
7 publications, 2.1%
|
|
Beijing Normal University
6 publications, 1.8%
|
|
Wuhan University
6 publications, 1.8%
|
|
Anhui University of Science and Technology
6 publications, 1.8%
|
|
Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences
6 publications, 1.8%
|
|
China University of Petroleum (Beijing)
5 publications, 1.5%
|
|
Liaoning Technical University
5 publications, 1.5%
|
|
Northwest University
5 publications, 1.5%
|
|
Xi'An University of Science and Technology
5 publications, 1.5%
|
|
Colorado State University
5 publications, 1.5%
|
|
Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, Chinese Academy of Sciences
5 publications, 1.5%
|
|
Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences
5 publications, 1.5%
|
|
Chongqing Jiaotong University
4 publications, 1.2%
|
|
Southwest University
4 publications, 1.2%
|
|
Taiyuan University of Technology
4 publications, 1.2%
|
|
Chengdu University of Technology
4 publications, 1.2%
|
|
Aerospace Information Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Sciences
4 publications, 1.2%
|
|
Xinjiang University
4 publications, 1.2%
|
|
Fudan University
3 publications, 0.9%
|
|
Nanjing Normal University
3 publications, 0.9%
|
|
Nanjing University
3 publications, 0.9%
|
|
Chongqing University of Science and Technology
3 publications, 0.9%
|
|
Guangdong Ocean University
3 publications, 0.9%
|
|
University of Science and Technology Beijing
3 publications, 0.9%
|
|
Tianjin University
3 publications, 0.9%
|
|
Hohai University
3 publications, 0.9%
|
|
Southwest Petroleum University
3 publications, 0.9%
|
|
Zhongyuan University of Technology
3 publications, 0.9%
|
|
Chuzhou University
3 publications, 0.9%
|
|
Chang'an University
3 publications, 0.9%
|
|
Lanzhou University
3 publications, 0.9%
|
|
Jiangxi Normal University
3 publications, 0.9%
|
|
Guangzhou Institute of Geochemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences
3 publications, 0.9%
|
|
Shiraz University
2 publications, 0.6%
|
|
Peking University
2 publications, 0.6%
|
|
Nanjing Forestry University
2 publications, 0.6%
|
|
North China University of Science and Technology
2 publications, 0.6%
|
|
Capital Normal University
2 publications, 0.6%
|
|
Ocean University of China
2 publications, 0.6%
|
|
Shanghai University
2 publications, 0.6%
|
|
Guangdong University of Technology
2 publications, 0.6%
|
|
University of Edinburgh
2 publications, 0.6%
|
|
Hefei University of Technology
2 publications, 0.6%
|
|
Guizhou University
2 publications, 0.6%
|
|
Tokyo Institute of Technology
2 publications, 0.6%
|
|
Pennsylvania State University
2 publications, 0.6%
|
|
University of Queensland
2 publications, 0.6%
|
|
Northwest A&F University
2 publications, 0.6%
|
|
Chinese University of Hong Kong
2 publications, 0.6%
|
|
Zhejiang Normal University
2 publications, 0.6%
|
|
Henan Polytechnic University
2 publications, 0.6%
|
|
University of Aberdeen
2 publications, 0.6%
|
|
Sanya University
2 publications, 0.6%
|
|
Jiangxi Agricultural University
2 publications, 0.6%
|
|
Xinjiang Agricultural University
2 publications, 0.6%
|
|
National University of Defense Technology
2 publications, 0.6%
|
|
University of Maryland, College Park
2 publications, 0.6%
|
|
Tanta University
2 publications, 0.6%
|
|
Institute of Earth Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences
2 publications, 0.6%
|
|
Limnological Institute of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
1 publication, 0.3%
|
|
Irkutsk State University
1 publication, 0.3%
|
|
Institute of the Earth’s Crust of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
1 publication, 0.3%
|
|
Nazarbayev University
1 publication, 0.3%
|
|
Geological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences
1 publication, 0.3%
|
|
V.S. Sobolev Institute of Geology and Mineralogy of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
1 publication, 0.3%
|
|
University of Tehran
1 publication, 0.3%
|
|
Amirkabir University of Technology
1 publication, 0.3%
|
|
University of Tabriz
1 publication, 0.3%
|
|
Shahid Beheshti University
1 publication, 0.3%
|
|
University of Peshawar
1 publication, 0.3%
|
|
University of Sargodha
1 publication, 0.3%
|
|
Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies
1 publication, 0.3%
|
|
Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch
1 publication, 0.3%
|
|
Islamic Azad University, Isfahan
1 publication, 0.3%
|
|
Urmia University
1 publication, 0.3%
|
|
Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz
1 publication, 0.3%
|
|
University of Balochistan
1 publication, 0.3%
|
|
Burdur Mehmet Akif Ersoy University
1 publication, 0.3%
|
|
Zanjan University
1 publication, 0.3%
|
|
Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology
1 publication, 0.3%
|
|
Vietnam National University, Hanoi
1 publication, 0.3%
|
|
VNU University of Science
1 publication, 0.3%
|
|
Malayer University
1 publication, 0.3%
|
|
Tsinghua University
1 publication, 0.3%
|
|
South China University of Technology
1 publication, 0.3%
|
|
Tongji University
1 publication, 0.3%
|
|
Xi'an Jiaotong University
1 publication, 0.3%
|
|
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
1 publication, 0.3%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
|
Publishing countries
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
|
|
China
|
China, 712, 80.82%
China
712 publications, 80.82%
|
USA
|
USA, 150, 17.03%
USA
150 publications, 17.03%
|
India
|
India, 19, 2.16%
India
19 publications, 2.16%
|
Iran
|
Iran, 17, 1.93%
Iran
17 publications, 1.93%
|
United Kingdom
|
United Kingdom, 15, 1.7%
United Kingdom
15 publications, 1.7%
|
Canada
|
Canada, 14, 1.59%
Canada
14 publications, 1.59%
|
Japan
|
Japan, 14, 1.59%
Japan
14 publications, 1.59%
|
Germany
|
Germany, 13, 1.48%
Germany
13 publications, 1.48%
|
Australia
|
Australia, 11, 1.25%
Australia
11 publications, 1.25%
|
Russia
|
Russia, 8, 0.91%
Russia
8 publications, 0.91%
|
Spain
|
Spain, 7, 0.79%
Spain
7 publications, 0.79%
|
Netherlands
|
Netherlands, 7, 0.79%
Netherlands
7 publications, 0.79%
|
Austria
|
Austria, 6, 0.68%
Austria
6 publications, 0.68%
|
Italy
|
Italy, 6, 0.68%
Italy
6 publications, 0.68%
|
Vietnam
|
Vietnam, 4, 0.45%
Vietnam
4 publications, 0.45%
|
Republic of Korea
|
Republic of Korea, 4, 0.45%
Republic of Korea
4 publications, 0.45%
|
Kazakhstan
|
Kazakhstan, 3, 0.34%
Kazakhstan
3 publications, 0.34%
|
Egypt
|
Egypt, 3, 0.34%
Egypt
3 publications, 0.34%
|
Nigeria
|
Nigeria, 3, 0.34%
Nigeria
3 publications, 0.34%
|
Pakistan
|
Pakistan, 3, 0.34%
Pakistan
3 publications, 0.34%
|
Romania
|
Romania, 3, 0.34%
Romania
3 publications, 0.34%
|
South Africa
|
South Africa, 3, 0.34%
South Africa
3 publications, 0.34%
|
France
|
France, 2, 0.23%
France
2 publications, 0.23%
|
Bermuda
|
Bermuda, 2, 0.23%
Bermuda
2 publications, 0.23%
|
Greece
|
Greece, 2, 0.23%
Greece
2 publications, 0.23%
|
Denmark
|
Denmark, 2, 0.23%
Denmark
2 publications, 0.23%
|
Malaysia
|
Malaysia, 2, 0.23%
Malaysia
2 publications, 0.23%
|
Mongolia
|
Mongolia, 2, 0.23%
Mongolia
2 publications, 0.23%
|
Poland
|
Poland, 2, 0.23%
Poland
2 publications, 0.23%
|
Sierra Leone
|
Sierra Leone, 2, 0.23%
Sierra Leone
2 publications, 0.23%
|
Thailand
|
Thailand, 2, 0.23%
Thailand
2 publications, 0.23%
|
Tanzania
|
Tanzania, 2, 0.23%
Tanzania
2 publications, 0.23%
|
Turkey
|
Turkey, 2, 0.23%
Turkey
2 publications, 0.23%
|
Sweden
|
Sweden, 2, 0.23%
Sweden
2 publications, 0.23%
|
Ukraine
|
Ukraine, 1, 0.11%
Ukraine
1 publication, 0.11%
|
Estonia
|
Estonia, 1, 0.11%
Estonia
1 publication, 0.11%
|
Portugal
|
Portugal, 1, 0.11%
Portugal
1 publication, 0.11%
|
Algeria
|
Algeria, 1, 0.11%
Algeria
1 publication, 0.11%
|
Bangladesh
|
Bangladesh, 1, 0.11%
Bangladesh
1 publication, 0.11%
|
Belgium
|
Belgium, 1, 0.11%
Belgium
1 publication, 0.11%
|
Brazil
|
Brazil, 1, 0.11%
Brazil
1 publication, 0.11%
|
Brunei
|
Brunei, 1, 0.11%
Brunei
1 publication, 0.11%
|
Yemen
|
Yemen, 1, 0.11%
Yemen
1 publication, 0.11%
|
Kyrgyzstan
|
Kyrgyzstan, 1, 0.11%
Kyrgyzstan
1 publication, 0.11%
|
Nepal
|
Nepal, 1, 0.11%
Nepal
1 publication, 0.11%
|
Norway
|
Norway, 1, 0.11%
Norway
1 publication, 0.11%
|
Uzbekistan
|
Uzbekistan, 1, 0.11%
Uzbekistan
1 publication, 0.11%
|
Finland
|
Finland, 1, 0.11%
Finland
1 publication, 0.11%
|
Chile
|
Chile, 1, 0.11%
Chile
1 publication, 0.11%
|
Switzerland
|
Switzerland, 1, 0.11%
Switzerland
1 publication, 0.11%
|
Show all (20 more) | |
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
|
Publishing countries in 5 years
50
100
150
200
250
300
|
|
China
|
China, 262, 78.68%
China
262 publications, 78.68%
|
USA
|
USA, 26, 7.81%
USA
26 publications, 7.81%
|
United Kingdom
|
United Kingdom, 10, 3%
United Kingdom
10 publications, 3%
|
Iran
|
Iran, 9, 2.7%
Iran
9 publications, 2.7%
|
Australia
|
Australia, 5, 1.5%
Australia
5 publications, 1.5%
|
Japan
|
Japan, 5, 1.5%
Japan
5 publications, 1.5%
|
Canada
|
Canada, 4, 1.2%
Canada
4 publications, 1.2%
|
Germany
|
Germany, 3, 0.9%
Germany
3 publications, 0.9%
|
Egypt
|
Egypt, 3, 0.9%
Egypt
3 publications, 0.9%
|
Russia
|
Russia, 2, 0.6%
Russia
2 publications, 0.6%
|
Austria
|
Austria, 2, 0.6%
Austria
2 publications, 0.6%
|
India
|
India, 2, 0.6%
India
2 publications, 0.6%
|
Spain
|
Spain, 2, 0.6%
Spain
2 publications, 0.6%
|
Mongolia
|
Mongolia, 2, 0.6%
Mongolia
2 publications, 0.6%
|
Netherlands
|
Netherlands, 2, 0.6%
Netherlands
2 publications, 0.6%
|
Pakistan
|
Pakistan, 2, 0.6%
Pakistan
2 publications, 0.6%
|
Republic of Korea
|
Republic of Korea, 2, 0.6%
Republic of Korea
2 publications, 0.6%
|
Tanzania
|
Tanzania, 2, 0.6%
Tanzania
2 publications, 0.6%
|
Kazakhstan
|
Kazakhstan, 1, 0.3%
Kazakhstan
1 publication, 0.3%
|
Bangladesh
|
Bangladesh, 1, 0.3%
Bangladesh
1 publication, 0.3%
|
Brunei
|
Brunei, 1, 0.3%
Brunei
1 publication, 0.3%
|
Vietnam
|
Vietnam, 1, 0.3%
Vietnam
1 publication, 0.3%
|
Denmark
|
Denmark, 1, 0.3%
Denmark
1 publication, 0.3%
|
Italy
|
Italy, 1, 0.3%
Italy
1 publication, 0.3%
|
Yemen
|
Yemen, 1, 0.3%
Yemen
1 publication, 0.3%
|
Norway
|
Norway, 1, 0.3%
Norway
1 publication, 0.3%
|
Poland
|
Poland, 1, 0.3%
Poland
1 publication, 0.3%
|
Finland
|
Finland, 1, 0.3%
Finland
1 publication, 0.3%
|
Chile
|
Chile, 1, 0.3%
Chile
1 publication, 0.3%
|
South Africa
|
South Africa, 1, 0.3%
South Africa
1 publication, 0.3%
|
50
100
150
200
250
300
|