Journal of Medicine and Philosophy
Are you a researcher?
Create a profile to get free access to personal recommendations for colleagues and new articles.
SCImago
Q1
WOS
Q4
Impact factor
1.3
SJR
0.406
CiteScore
2.9
Categories
Philosophy
Issues, Ethics and Legal Aspects
Medicine (miscellaneous)
Areas
Arts and Humanities
Medicine
Nursing
Years of issue
1976-2025
journal names
Journal of Medicine and Philosophy
The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine
J MED PHILOS
Top-3 citing journals

Journal of Medicine and Philosophy
(1856 citations)

Journal of Medical Ethics
(487 citations)

Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
(481 citations)
Top-3 organizations

Baylor College of Medicine
(87 publications)

Georgetown University
(69 publications)

William Marsh Rice University
(43 publications)

Wake Forest University
(6 publications)

East Carolina University
(5 publications)

Georgetown University
(5 publications)
Top-3 countries
Most cited in 5 years
Found
Publications found: 395
Q3

Qualitative and quantitative assessment of solite RE black and HyFlex remover systems for endodontic retreatment - An in vitro nano-computed tomography analysis
Valan A.S., Solete P., Antony S.D., Ramamoorthi S., Alasqah M., Arunachalam V.
Abstract
Introduction:
The successful outcome of endodontic retreatment heavily relies on the thorough removal of root canal filling materials. This study aimed to quantitatively and qualitatively assess the efficacy of various retreatment file systems using nano-computed tomography (nano-CT) imaging.
Materials and Methods:
Thirty recently extracted human mandibular molars with mesial roots having curvatures <20° were chosen and sectioned to 16 mm in length. The root canals were prepared with the ProTaper Gold system up to size F2 and they were filled with gutta percha and AH Plus sealer. After obturation, all the samples were randomly assigned to two groups (n = 15 each) for retreatment: Group 1 utilized Solite RE Black retreatment files, while Group 2 employed Coltene HyFlex Remover files. Nano-CT imaging was employed to measure pre- and postoperative volumes of remaining filling material and remaining dentin thickness and the time taken for retreatment was measured in seconds. The obtained values were analyzed statistically (P < 0.05).
Results:
Nano-CT analysis showed a significant difference (P < 0.05) in the volume of remaining filling material between the Solite RE Black and Coltene HyFlex Remover groups. However, no significant difference was observed in the time required for gutta-percha removal. The Solite RE Black system showed comparatively less dentin removal than the Coltene HyFlex Remover system (P < 0.05).
Conclusion:
The Solite RE Black retreatment file system demonstrated promising efficacy in removing filling material while preserving dentin integrity compared to the Coltene HyFlex Remover system. These findings support its potential as an effective tool for endodontic retreatment, emphasizing the need for further clinical trials to validate its performance across various clinical scenarios.
Q3

Evaluating generative pretraining transformer reliability in addressing dental trauma: A cross-sectional observational study on avulsion and intrusion
Bordin R.W., Bartnack C.C., Westphalen V.P., Gasparello G.G., Bark M.J., Gava T.N., Tanaka O.M.
Abstract
Introduction:
The advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) has revolutionized digital communication, enhancing interactions between humans and computers. This study explores the application of Chat Generative Pretrained Transformer 3.5 (ChatGPT-3.5), in providing accurate information on dental trauma.
Materials and Methods:
Utilizing a dataset of 45 self-generated questions across three topics, general dental trauma, avulsion, and intrusion, ChatGPT-3.5 generated responses that were subsequently evaluated by five endodontic experts, each with over a decade of experience. The evaluators used a Likert scale to assess the quality of the AI-generated answers, synthesizing reliable scientific evidence and clinical expertise to ensure a thorough analysis. The data obtained from the evaluators’ scores were organized and analyzed using Microsoft Excel software and the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 25. For each question, descriptive statistics including the median and interquartile range were computed.
Results:
The study found that ChatGPT provided reliable information across the three assessed dental topics. Avulsion was rated the highest (4.40 ± 0.717), significantly outperforming general dental trauma (3.97 ± 0.885) (P = 0.005). Intrusion received a rating of 4.13 ± 0.794, showing no significant difference compared to the other topics. Most evaluator scores fell into the “Good” (44.0%) and “Very Good” (38.7%) categories. This indicates a generally positive appraisal of ChatGPT’s performance, with a fair agreement among evaluators, evidenced by a combined Fleiss’s kappa coefficient of 0.324. However, there was variability, particularly with Evaluator 4’s scores differing significantly from those of evaluators 1 and 2.
Conclusions:
ChatGPT’s responses on general dental trauma, avulsion, and intrusion were generally rated positively, with avulsion responses deemed the most reliable. The study underscores the need for continuous evaluation to maintain the accuracy, reliability, and safety of AI-generated content in endodontics, suggesting AI should serve as a supplementary tool rather than a primary information source.
Q3

Agreement between students’ self/peer and faculty assessments of the radiographic technical quality of root canal treatment performed during preclinical and clinical endodontic courses
Awooda E.M., Elzaki W.M., Al-Nazhan S.A.
Abstract
Introduction:
This study investigated the agreement between students’ self-assessment or peer assessment and faculty assessment of the quality of root canal treatment (RCT) performed during preclinical and clinical endodontic courses.
Materials and Methods:
This cross-sectional study enrolled 23 4th-year students and a faculty member from the University of Medical Sciences and Technology, Sudan. The radiographic technical quality of RCTs performed during preclinical and clinical endodontic courses was evaluated by the students themselves, their peers, and faculty members in terms of the obturation length, shape, and density. Paired Student’s t-test was used to compare self-peer and faculty assessments. P < 0.05 was considered indicative of statistical significance.
Results:
No statistically significant differences were observed among the three assessment groups in terms of the quality of RCTs performed during the preclinical course. However, statistically significant differences were observed between self- and peer assessments (P = 0.014), and between self- and faculty assessments (P = 0.005), which may be attributable to lower confidence among students when working on real patients, leading to lower self-assessment scores.
Conclusion:
Significant differences were observed between self- and peer assessments and faculty assessments in the quality of RCT performed during the clinical course, with students underrating their performance. Formative assessment of learning rather than summative assessment, during endodontic courses, is recommended at the end of academic year.
Q3

Persistent pain in maxillary premolars following root canal treatment with apical transportation: A report of two cases without periapical pathology
Ong T.K.
Abstract
Persistent pain after endodontic treatment is often associated with evidence of periapical pathology. Nonetheless, this case report presents two instances of persistent pain in maxillary premolars post root canal treatment (RCT), without evident periapical radiolucency on imaging. A 35-year-old Asian female experienced dull, aching pain on biting in tooth #25, whereas a 40-year-old Caucasian female reported similar symptoms in tooth #15. Both teeth showed tenderness to percussion but not palpation. Periapical radiographs and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans revealed completed RCT with apical transportation but no detectable periapical pathology. Thus, both teeth were diagnosed as previously treated with symptomatic apical periodontitis. Non-surgical retreatment successfully addressed untreated canal spaces, resolving symptoms. This report suggested persistent pain following RCT might stem from endodontic reasons, even in the absence of visible apical pathology on CBCT scans, highlighting the importance of thorough canal debridement to resolve symptoms associated with untreated canal spaces in apical transportation. Furthermore, this case report demonstrates that clinicians should make a diagnosis through thorough dental history and other clinical investigations, without relying solely on CBCT for the diagnosis of posttreatment endodontic pain.
Q3

Tampon approach in vital pulp therapy: Advancing endodontic care for permanent dentition
Asgary S.
Q3
Saudi Endodontic Journal
,
2024
,
citations by CoLab: 0
,

Open Access
Q3

Comprehensive management of complex resorptive lesions: Report of two cases
Ray A.B., Mayya A., Ghosh S., Rai N., Acharya S.R., Chatra A., Shettigar L.S.
Abstract
In the field of endodontics, the management of complex resorptive lesions demands innovative and precise interventions. This report delineates the comprehensive management of two distinct cases, each presenting unique challenges. The first case involved a 23-year-old male with hypothyroidism, presenting with pain and external cervical resorption with internal communication in his lower left front tooth. The case was diagnosed with pulp necrosis and asymptomatic apical periodontitis. The second case involved a 26-year-old female in good health, dissatisfied with the cosmetic appearance, and experiencing occasional pain from a previously treated upper front tooth with concurrent external apical and internal resorption. It was diagnosed as previously treated, with symptomatic apical periodontitis. These cases were notable for their complexity and the tailored approach to diagnosis and treatment, employing advanced techniques and materials, such as bioceramic materials, for optimal outcomes. The first case was approached through conventional endodontic disinfection, flap reflection, and the meticulous external management of the resorptive defect with bioceramic material, followed by restorative procedures. The second case required retreatment, including wide canal management, apex negotiation, and the establishment of an apical plug with bioceramic material, culminating in backfilling with thermoplasticized gutta-percha and subsequent prosthetic rehabilitation. Remarkably, both cases demonstrated successful healing and patient satisfaction at a 6-month follow-up, with radiographs and photographs evidencing the desired clinical outcomes. This report highlights the necessity of adaptability, precision, and the integration of innovative materials and techniques in endodontic practice to effectively address complex resorptive lesions. It underscores the significance of a comprehensive diagnostic and treatment framework that can guide clinical decision-making and enhance procedural outcomes in similar challenging scenarios. It contributes valuable insights and reinforces the imperative of detailed management in endodontic complexities.
Q3

A narrative review on applications of nanotechnology in modern endodontics
Javed M.Q., Ali A.
Abstract
Nanotechnology in modern endodontics involves manipulating materials at the nanoscale to improve dental treatments, disinfection, imaging, and tissue engineering. This narrative review aims to evaluate the impact and applications of nanotechnology in modern endodontics, focusing on advancements in materials, disinfection processes, imaging techniques, and tissue engineering while addressing associated challenges and safety concerns. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in March 2024 across PubMed, SCOPUS, EMBASE, COCHRANE Library, and Science Direct databases using MeSH terms/keywords such as “Nanotechnology,” “Endodontics,” “Disinfection,” and “Dental Tissue Engineering.” Articles published from March 2010 to March 2024 were considered, with inclusion criteria focusing on studies relevant to the objectives. From an initial pool of 774 articles, 86 were selected based on titles and abstracts, and 45 were shortlisted after full-text evaluation. The review highlights significant advancements in nanotechnology in endodontic materials, disinfection methods, imaging techniques, and tissue engineering. Nanomaterials have improved the efficiency, precision, and biocompatibility of dental treatments. However, challenges such as long-term biocompatibility, standardization of applications, and patient safety remain to be addressed. Continuous research, ethical practices, and regulatory oversight are crucial for integrating nanotechnology into endodontics. While nanotechnology offers promising advancements in endodontics, ongoing research and collaboration among researchers, clinicians, and regulatory bodies are essential to harness its full potential and ensure patient safety. Limitations of this review include potential biases in article selection and the evolving nature of nanotechnology research.
Q3

News
Q3
Saudi Endodontic Journal
,
2024
,
citations by CoLab: 0
,

Open Access
Q3

Evaluating the effectiveness of cone-beam computed tomography reverse contrast images in the diagnosis of vertical root fractures: An in vitro pilot study
Mortazavi S., Hasanpour S., Anbiaee N., Rouhani A., Naghavi N., Babazadeh S., Shiezadeh I.
Abstract
Introduction:
The aim of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) reverse contrast images in the diagnosis of vertical root fractures (VRFs).
Materials and Methods:
In this study, 20 single-canal premolar teeth without cracks and internal resorption were selected and after root canal treatment, divided into two: experimental and control groups. In each of the teeth in the experimental group, an artificial fracture was created with the SANTAM device, then the teeth of both groups were randomly placed in the dental sockets of a dry mandible, and after preparing CBCT images of the teeth, the images were processed by reverse contrast software. Initial and reverse contrast images were examined by two radiologists and two endodontists. The data were analyzed by SPSS software version 22.
Results:
Observers reported higher sensitivity and positive and negative predictive value in normal contrast images than in reverse contrast images, but the specificity reported by endodontists in reverse contrast images was slightly higher than in normal contrast images. In comparing the results of radiologists and endodontists, there was a significant agreement in the review of the initial images (κ =0/59), but there was no significant agreement in the images with reverse contrast (κ = −0/1). There was not any notable distinction observed in the assessment of normal and reverse contrast images among the observers, nor in the comparison between radiologists and endodontists, except for the examination of normal contrast images by the two groups of radiologists and endodontists (P = 0.00). From this, it can be inferred that the diagnostic power of reverse contrast images in identifying VRFs is inferior to that of normal contrast images (P > 0.05).
Conclusion:
According to the obtained results, it was concluded that reverse contrast CBCT images are not effective in diagnosing VRFs and cause error in diagnosis.
Q3

Antibacterial activity and smear layer removal efficiency of silver nanoparticles as a final irrigant against Enterococcus faecalis using confocal laser scanning microscopy and scanning electron microscopy
Chandran N., Ramesh S.
Abstract
Introduction:
Silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) have garnered significant attention for their potent antibacterial properties, making them promising candidates for use as root canal irrigants in endodontics. The persistent presence of Enterococcus faecalis in treated root canals often leads to endodontic failures. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of neem-synthesized AgNPs, chemically synthesized AgNPs, sodium hypochlorite (2.25%), and saline solution in reducing viable bacteria and removing smear layers in E. faecalis-infected mandibular premolar teeth.
Materials and Methods:
After decoronation, mandibular premolar, single-rooted, teeth (120) were instrumented until ProTaper Gold F3. In all samples, inoculation of E. faecalis was done and divided into four groups depending on the irrigating solution used into Group A: neem-synthesized AgNPs, Group B: chemically synthesized AgNPs, Group C: sodium hypochlorite (2.25%), and Group D: saline solution. After irrigation, roots were divided longitudinally and analyzed for confocal laser scanning microscopy and scanning electron microscopy. Data were statistically analyzed using Tukey’s honestly significant difference test.
Results:
The minimum reduction in live bacteria percentage was seen in Group C rather than Groups A and B; although there was no significant difference between them. Group D showed the maximum percentage of live bacteria and a greatest score of smear layer compared to other groups. In contrast to Group B, Group A scored higher, although the results were nonsignificant. Group C showed the least score of smear layer presence. The P value between the experimental groups was found to be <0.05, indicating statistical significance.
Conclusion:
Both neem-synthesized AgNp and sodium hypochlorite irrigants reduced the proportion of viable bacteria most significantly. This work demonstrates the possibility of employing nanoparticles as an irrigant that can effectively remove smear layers while also acting as an antimicrobial.
Q3

Endodontic management of mandibular permanent canine with two roots and two root canals using cone-beam computed tomography
Alfahadi H.R., Alyami Y.A., Alkazman F.H., Al Fadhil M.H., Alyami S.A., Alyami A.M., Alsalem M.F.
Abstract
A thorough understanding of the root canal systems of various human teeth can facilitate successful root canal treatment. The mandibular canines typically have one root and one canal. Mandibular canines with two roots are uncommon. This case report describes the examination of occlusion erosion and deep caries that had reached the pulp chamber in the mandibular canine of a 56-year-old healthy Saudi female patient referred to the endodontic clinic for evaluating the left mandibular canine. Radiographic evaluation revealed a widening of the periodontal ligament and periapical radiolucency and the presence of two roots. Two roots with two root canals were observed on cone-beam computed tomography. The tooth responded to a sensitivity test and was tender upon percussion and palpation. Symptomatic irreversible pulpitis and symptomatic apical periodontitis diagnosis were established, and nonsurgical root canal treatment was performed using a dental operating microscope. At follow-up, the patient’s symptoms had completely disappeared.
Q3

Use of bioactive glass in combination with or without calcium hydroxide changes the biological and mechanical properties of dentin: An in vitro study
Salkoska Yildizbas A., Uysal B.A., Kucuk Keles O., Belli S.
Abstract
Introduction:
Calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) is the most commonly used medicament in endodontics. This study aimed to investigate the effect of bioactive glass (BG) use with or without Ca(OH)2 on the biological and mechanical properties of dentin.
Materials and Methods:
Standard holes were created to simulate root canals on 84 dentin slices. Four groups were formed according to the medicament placed in the root canals: Ca(OH)2; Ca(OH)2 + 7% BG; BG and control. Scanning electron microscopy analysis to evaluate the dentin surfaces exposed to the test medicaments and energy dispersive X-ray analysis to observe apatite formation were used on the 1st, 7th, and 14th days. X-ray diffraction measurements were performed to investigate mineral phase formation. Microhardness and pH measurements were also carried out. Data were analyzed using Kruskal–Wallis and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests (P < 0.05).
Results:
The Ca(OH)2 and control groups showed the highest Ca and P mineral content on the 14th day, whereas the lowest Ca and P content was found in the Ca(OH)2 + BG group (P < 0.05). A gradual decrease in crystal formation was found in the Ca(OH)2 + BG group from the 1st day to the 14th day. The highest microhardness measurements were also recorded in the Ca(OH)2 + BG group (P < 0.05). The Ca(OH)2 + BG group showed the highest pH measurements (P = 0.001).
Conclusions:
Ca(OH)2 + BG can be an alternative intracanal medicament. Further studies should be performed to determine the clinical implications of this combination.
Q3

Comparative evaluation of smear layer removal and dentin wettability using 1% phytic acid with and without 0.2% chitosan nanoparticles: An in vitro study
Halkai R., Halkai K.R., Mahveen S.U.
Abstract
Introduction:
The success of endodontic treatment depends on the complete removal of the smear layer from the root canal and the enhanced wettability of the irrigants employed during treatment. However, none of the irrigants efficiently accomplish this; thus, the purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the elimination of the smear layer and wettability of root dentin using the combination of 0.2% Chitosan nanoparticles(CSN) with 1% phytic acid (PA).
Materials and Methods:
About 100 extracted single-rooted human premolar teeth were decoronated and standardized to 13 mm root length. Fifty specimens were tested for smear layer removal and another half for wettability (n = 50) after final irrigation in five groups: Group 1 – normal saline (control), Group 2 – 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), Group 3 – 17% EDTA with 0.2% CSN, Group 4 – 1% PA, and Group 5 – 1% PA with 0.2% CSN. After root canal instrumentation and final irrigation, the specimens were observed under scanning electron microscope for the smear layer. Wettability was determined using dentin blocks obtained (n = 50) by resecting the apical third of each specimen, treated with irrigants in aforementioned groups, and the contact angle was measured using a goniometer. Statistical analysis was done using one-way analysis of variance and post hoc Tukey tests (P < 0.05).
Results:
A combination of 1% PA with 0.2% CSN showed higher smear layer removal and increased wettability.
Conclusions:
The incorporation of 0.2% CSN to 1% PA was effective in removing the smear layer and increased the dentinal wettability.
Q3

A cross-sectional study on awareness regarding management of dental trauma among clinical dental students and interns
Ikhile F.O., Enabulele J.E.
Abstract
Introduction:
Dental trauma could lead to separation or crushing of the dental supporting tissues and esthetic and functional disorders. This study aims to evaluate the knowledge regarding the management of dental trauma among clinical dental students and interns in Benin City, Nigeria.
Materials and Methods:
This descriptive cross-sectional study utilized a self-administered questionnaire containing 15 closed and open-ended questions to garner data focused on sociodemograhic characteristics and awareness of the management of traumatic dental injury, from respondents. Data from 95 respondents were statistically analyzed and both univariate and bivariate analyses were used in this study.
Results:
A significant proportion; 77 (81.1%) had a poor overall knowledge of management, although most respondents had knowledge of some of the steps involved in emergency management of dental trauma. The association between respondents’ level of education and their knowledge of the management of dental trauma was found to be statistically significant (P = 0.0001). Respondents at higher level in their dental training were found to have better overall knowledge compared to those at lower levels.
Conclusion:
The knowledge regarding the management of dental trauma among the respondents was poor. This was associated with the level of study and clinical exposure.
Q3
Navigating endodontic outcomes through cone-beam computed tomography: A narrative review
Zahran S.S., Mirdad L.H.
Abstract
Periapical radiographs (PRs) have been the most reliable modality for assessing periapical health. Later, the evolution of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) revolutionized three-dimensional maxillofacial skeletal imaging. CBCT imaging has emerged as a superior diagnostic tool compared to PR. The aim of this narrative review was to provide a comprehensive overview of the outcomes related to the use of CBCT in evaluating various endodontic treatments, including primary root canal treatments, secondary treatments, endodontic microsurgeries, and vital pulp therapies and the associated prognostic factors. The research selection process involved systematically searching PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for literature on CBCT and endodontics. Criteria included English-language; peer-reviewed articles published from January 2010 to December 2023, reporting 1-year outcomes of various endodontic treatments using CBCT. Two independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full texts. A total of 18 outcome study articles utilizing CBCT to evaluate primary root canal treatment were selected, as well as 7 for secondary root canal retreatment, 3 for vital pulp therapy, and 11 articles pertaining to endodontic microsurgery. The outcomes revealed varying success rates and prognostic factors. Consistent with outcome research employing PRs, studies that utilized CBCT also exhibited substantial variability in factors affecting initial and secondary treatment outcomes. The rate of favorable outcomes was significantly lower when assessed with CBCT compared to PR. The results from utilizing CBCT for primary and secondary root canal treatments, endodontic microsurgeries, and vital pulp therapies demonstrate diverse success rates and prognostic factors in comparison to outcomes based solely on PRs.
Top-100
Citing journals
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
|
|
Journal of Medicine and Philosophy
1856 citations, 7.54%
|
|
Journal of Medical Ethics
487 citations, 1.98%
|
|
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
481 citations, 1.95%
|
|
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
447 citations, 1.82%
|
|
American Journal of Bioethics
446 citations, 1.81%
|
|
Philosophy and Medicine
367 citations, 1.49%
|
|
HEC Forum
274 citations, 1.11%
|
|
Social Science and Medicine
215 citations, 0.87%
|
|
BMC Medical Ethics
206 citations, 0.84%
|
|
Nursing Ethics
187 citations, 0.76%
|
|
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics
181 citations, 0.74%
|
|
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
161 citations, 0.65%
|
|
Christian Bioethics
146 citations, 0.59%
|
|
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
132 citations, 0.54%
|
|
Health Care Analysis
124 citations, 0.5%
|
|
Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics
121 citations, 0.49%
|
|
Journal of Clinical Ethics
116 citations, 0.47%
|
|
The Linacre quarterly
110 citations, 0.45%
|
|
Behavioral and Brain Sciences
100 citations, 0.41%
|
|
Clinical Ethics
81 citations, 0.33%
|
|
Bioethics
80 citations, 0.32%
|
|
Nursing Philosophy
79 citations, 0.32%
|
|
SSRN Electronic Journal
76 citations, 0.31%
|
|
Acceptable Risk in Biomedical Research
70 citations, 0.28%
|
|
Ethik in der Medizin
69 citations, 0.28%
|
|
Synthese
69 citations, 0.28%
|
|
The International Library of Bioethics
67 citations, 0.27%
|
|
Neuroethics
64 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Science and Engineering Ethics
63 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Hastings Center Report
62 citations, 0.25%
|
|
Monash bioethics review
61 citations, 0.25%
|
|
Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
60 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Journal of Advanced Nursing
56 citations, 0.23%
|
|
Frontiers in Psychology
55 citations, 0.22%
|
|
PLoS ONE
54 citations, 0.22%
|
|
New Bioethics
53 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Advances in Neuroethics
53 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Journal of Medical Humanities
52 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C :Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences
47 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Public Health Ethics
46 citations, 0.19%
|
|
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
45 citations, 0.18%
|
|
International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics
44 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Revista Bioética
43 citations, 0.17%
|
|
NanoEthics
42 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Pediatrics
42 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Qualitative Health Research
40 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Patient Education and Counseling
40 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Ethics, Medicine and Public Health
39 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Sociology of Health and Illness
39 citations, 0.16%
|
|
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry
38 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Academic Medicine
37 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Health Policy
36 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Ethical Theory and Moral Practice
36 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Nursing Inquiry
35 citations, 0.14%
|
|
The Lancet
35 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
35 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Medical Humanities
34 citations, 0.14%
|
|
AJOB Neuroscience
33 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Hypatia
33 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Biology and Philosophy
33 citations, 0.13%
|
|
New England Journal of Medicine
32 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Philosophy of Science
32 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Philosophical Psychology
32 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Human Gene Therapy
32 citations, 0.13%
|
|
BMJ Open
31 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Frontiers in Psychiatry
31 citations, 0.13%
|
|
BMC Health Services Research
31 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Journal of Religion and Health
31 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Accountability in Research
30 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Medical Education
30 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Politics and the Life Sciences
29 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Philosophy and Technology
29 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Philosophical Studies
28 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Critical Care Medicine
28 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law
28 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Journal of Business Ethics
27 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics
27 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Journal of Clinical Nursing
27 citations, 0.11%
|
|
American Journal of Transplantation
26 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Health (United Kingdom)
26 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Journal of General Internal Medicine
26 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Topoi
26 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry
25 citations, 0.1%
|
|
New Genetics and Society
25 citations, 0.1%
|
|
History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences
25 citations, 0.1%
|
|
BMJ
25 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Medical Decision Making
24 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Neurology
24 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Inquiry (United Kingdom)
24 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Science Technology and Human Values
24 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Clinical Trials
24 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Cancer Biotherapy and Radiopharmaceuticals
24 citations, 0.1%
|
|
British Journal for the Philosophy of Science
24 citations, 0.1%
|
|
F1000Research
24 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Asian Bioethics Review
24 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Chest
23 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences
23 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Journal of Palliative Medicine
22 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Developing World Bioethics
21 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Advances in Nursing Science
21 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
|
Citing publishers
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
|
|
Springer Nature
5073 citations, 20.61%
|
|
Oxford University Press
2438 citations, 9.9%
|
|
Elsevier
2023 citations, 8.22%
|
|
Taylor & Francis
1950 citations, 7.92%
|
|
Wiley
1830 citations, 7.43%
|
|
SAGE
1373 citations, 5.58%
|
|
Cambridge University Press
1104 citations, 4.48%
|
|
BMJ
659 citations, 2.68%
|
|
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
457 citations, 1.86%
|
|
Frontiers Media S.A.
225 citations, 0.91%
|
|
MDPI
209 citations, 0.85%
|
|
Emerald
129 citations, 0.52%
|
|
Mary Ann Liebert
125 citations, 0.51%
|
|
University Pub. Group
115 citations, 0.47%
|
|
SciELO
115 citations, 0.47%
|
|
IGI Global
108 citations, 0.44%
|
|
Social Science Electronic Publishing
79 citations, 0.32%
|
|
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
76 citations, 0.31%
|
|
Walter de Gruyter
67 citations, 0.27%
|
|
University of Chicago Press
66 citations, 0.27%
|
|
American Academy of Pediatrics
61 citations, 0.25%
|
|
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
61 citations, 0.25%
|
|
CAIRN
50 citations, 0.2%
|
|
University of Toronto Press Inc. (UTPress)
49 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
45 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Duke University Press
45 citations, 0.18%
|
|
F1000 Research
40 citations, 0.16%
|
|
S. Karger AG
37 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Massachusetts Medical Society
34 citations, 0.14%
|
|
SLACK
34 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Consortium Erudit
32 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
27 citations, 0.11%
|
|
American Medical Association (AMA)
27 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Mark Allen Group
26 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Hindawi Limited
23 citations, 0.09%
|
|
JMIR Publications
23 citations, 0.09%
|
|
American Public Health Association
22 citations, 0.09%
|
|
University of Montreal
22 citations, 0.09%
|
|
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
21 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Royal College of Psychiatrists
20 citations, 0.08%
|
|
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
18 citations, 0.07%
|
|
American Psychological Association (APA)
18 citations, 0.07%
|
|
17 citations, 0.07%
|
|
Annual Reviews
15 citations, 0.06%
|
|
IntechOpen
15 citations, 0.06%
|
|
AOSIS
15 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Scandinavian University Press / Universitetsforlaget AS
14 citations, 0.06%
|
|
American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
13 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Hogrefe Publishing Group
12 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Guilford Publications
12 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Brill
11 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Nucleo de Comunicacao, Fundacao UNI
11 citations, 0.04%
|
|
OpenEdition
11 citations, 0.04%
|
|
University of Illinois Press
10 citations, 0.04%
|
|
AME Publishing Company
10 citations, 0.04%
|
|
10 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Scientific Research Publishing
10 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Health Affairs (Project Hope)
9 citations, 0.04%
|
|
American Thoracic Society
9 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Baishideng Publishing Group
9 citations, 0.04%
|
|
John Benjamins Publishing Company
8 citations, 0.03%
|
|
American Speech Language Hearing Association
8 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Akademiai Kiado
8 citations, 0.03%
|
|
7 citations, 0.03%
|
|
MIT Press
7 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Fundacao Oswaldo Cruz
7 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Moffitt Cancer Center
7 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Equinox Publishing
7 citations, 0.03%
|
|
AACN Publishing
7 citations, 0.03%
|
|
IOS Press
6 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.
6 citations, 0.02%
|
|
6 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group (JNSPG)
6 citations, 0.02%
|
|
6 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Radiological Society of North America (RSNA)
6 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Associacao Universitaria de Pesquisa em Psicopatologia Fundamental
6 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishing
6 citations, 0.02%
|
|
CMA Impact Inc.
6 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Intellect
6 citations, 0.02%
|
|
European Molecular Biology Organization
6 citations, 0.02%
|
|
EDP Sciences
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Springer Publishing Company
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Spandidos Publications
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Editions E D K
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Academy of Management
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
American College of Physicians
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Society for Translational Oncology
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
European Respiratory Society (ERS)
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Stockholm University Press
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
American Dental Education Association
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Medknow
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co, KG
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
American Psychiatric Association Publishing
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Bristol University Press
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
The Pennsylvania State University Press
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Research Square Platform LLC
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
American Chemical Society (ACS)
4 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Edinburgh University Press
4 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Pleiades Publishing
4 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
|
Publishing organizations
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
|
|
Baylor College of Medicine
87 publications, 3.99%
|
|
Georgetown University
69 publications, 3.17%
|
|
William Marsh Rice University
43 publications, 1.97%
|
|
East Carolina University
38 publications, 1.74%
|
|
City University of Hong Kong
20 publications, 0.92%
|
|
Michigan State University
19 publications, 0.87%
|
|
University of Tennessee
17 publications, 0.78%
|
|
Pennsylvania State University
16 publications, 0.73%
|
|
Monash University
16 publications, 0.73%
|
|
University of Washington
15 publications, 0.69%
|
|
University at Buffalo, State University of New York
15 publications, 0.69%
|
|
Vanderbilt University
15 publications, 0.69%
|
|
University of Oxford
14 publications, 0.64%
|
|
Dartmouth College
14 publications, 0.64%
|
|
Wake Forest University
14 publications, 0.64%
|
|
University of Utah
12 publications, 0.55%
|
|
Harvard University
11 publications, 0.5%
|
|
Loyola University Chicago
11 publications, 0.5%
|
|
University of Münster
11 publications, 0.5%
|
|
University of Wisconsin–Madison
11 publications, 0.5%
|
|
University of Toronto
11 publications, 0.5%
|
|
Duke University
10 publications, 0.46%
|
|
Boston College
10 publications, 0.46%
|
|
Ruhr University Bochum
10 publications, 0.46%
|
|
University of Texas Medical Branch
10 publications, 0.46%
|
|
Radboud University Nijmegen
9 publications, 0.41%
|
|
University of Copenhagen
9 publications, 0.41%
|
|
University of Oslo
9 publications, 0.41%
|
|
Yale University
9 publications, 0.41%
|
|
University of Sydney
9 publications, 0.41%
|
|
University of Chicago
9 publications, 0.41%
|
|
Aarhus University
8 publications, 0.37%
|
|
George Washington University
8 publications, 0.37%
|
|
University of Notre Dame
8 publications, 0.37%
|
|
McGill University
8 publications, 0.37%
|
|
Baylor University
8 publications, 0.37%
|
|
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
8 publications, 0.37%
|
|
King's College London
7 publications, 0.32%
|
|
Northwestern University
7 publications, 0.32%
|
|
Catholic University of America
7 publications, 0.32%
|
|
New York University
7 publications, 0.32%
|
|
University of California, San Francisco
7 publications, 0.32%
|
|
University of Michigan
7 publications, 0.32%
|
|
University of British Columbia
7 publications, 0.32%
|
|
Medical College of Wisconsin
7 publications, 0.32%
|
|
University of Connecticut Health
7 publications, 0.32%
|
|
Tel Aviv University
6 publications, 0.28%
|
|
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
6 publications, 0.28%
|
|
University of Cambridge
6 publications, 0.28%
|
|
Macquarie University
6 publications, 0.28%
|
|
Dalhousie University
6 publications, 0.28%
|
|
University of California, Los Angeles
6 publications, 0.28%
|
|
University of Bristol
6 publications, 0.28%
|
|
University of Maryland, College Park
6 publications, 0.28%
|
|
Xi'an Jiaotong University
5 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Stockholm University
5 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Stanford University
5 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Columbia University
5 publications, 0.23%
|
|
University of Johannesburg
5 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Boston University
5 publications, 0.23%
|
|
University of Illinois at Chicago
5 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Tufts University
5 publications, 0.23%
|
|
University of California, San Diego
5 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Lancaster University
5 publications, 0.23%
|
|
University of Amsterdam
5 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Western University
5 publications, 0.23%
|
|
University of Rochester
5 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Indiana University Bloomington
5 publications, 0.23%
|
|
National Institutes of Health Clinical Center
5 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Ghent University
4 publications, 0.18%
|
|
Södertörn University
4 publications, 0.18%
|
|
University of Basel
4 publications, 0.18%
|
|
University of Manchester
4 publications, 0.18%
|
|
Carnegie Mellon University
4 publications, 0.18%
|
|
Cornell University
4 publications, 0.18%
|
|
University of Glasgow
4 publications, 0.18%
|
|
University of Melbourne
4 publications, 0.18%
|
|
Georgetown University Medical Center
4 publications, 0.18%
|
|
University of California, Berkeley
4 publications, 0.18%
|
|
Shandong University
4 publications, 0.18%
|
|
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
4 publications, 0.18%
|
|
Oakland University
4 publications, 0.18%
|
|
Swansea University
4 publications, 0.18%
|
|
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
4 publications, 0.18%
|
|
Philipps University of Marburg
4 publications, 0.18%
|
|
Brown University
4 publications, 0.18%
|
|
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
4 publications, 0.18%
|
|
Villanova University
4 publications, 0.18%
|
|
Fordham University
4 publications, 0.18%
|
|
University of Pennsylvania
4 publications, 0.18%
|
|
University of Alberta
4 publications, 0.18%
|
|
University of Kentucky
4 publications, 0.18%
|
|
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
4 publications, 0.18%
|
|
Cleveland Clinic
4 publications, 0.18%
|
|
University of Delaware
4 publications, 0.18%
|
|
University of Tübingen
3 publications, 0.14%
|
|
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
3 publications, 0.14%
|
|
Linköping University
3 publications, 0.14%
|
|
University of Gothenburg
3 publications, 0.14%
|
|
University of Zurich
3 publications, 0.14%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
|
Publishing organizations in 5 years
1
2
3
4
5
6
|
|
Wake Forest University
6 publications, 2.58%
|
|
Georgetown University
5 publications, 2.15%
|
|
East Carolina University
5 publications, 2.15%
|
|
Baylor University
5 publications, 2.15%
|
|
University of Oxford
4 publications, 1.72%
|
|
Aarhus University
4 publications, 1.72%
|
|
University of Sydney
4 publications, 1.72%
|
|
University of Cambridge
3 publications, 1.29%
|
|
City University of Hong Kong
3 publications, 1.29%
|
|
Duke University
3 publications, 1.29%
|
|
Harvard University
3 publications, 1.29%
|
|
Loyola University Chicago
3 publications, 1.29%
|
|
University of British Columbia
3 publications, 1.29%
|
|
University of Gothenburg
2 publications, 0.86%
|
|
Södertörn University
2 publications, 0.86%
|
|
Delft University of Technology
2 publications, 0.86%
|
|
University of Copenhagen
2 publications, 0.86%
|
|
University of Southern Denmark
2 publications, 0.86%
|
|
King's College London
2 publications, 0.86%
|
|
University of Manchester
2 publications, 0.86%
|
|
University of Nottingham
2 publications, 0.86%
|
|
University of Melbourne
2 publications, 0.86%
|
|
Australian Catholic University
2 publications, 0.86%
|
|
Catholic University of America
2 publications, 0.86%
|
|
University of California, Los Angeles
2 publications, 0.86%
|
|
University of Notre Dame
2 publications, 0.86%
|
|
Boston College
2 publications, 0.86%
|
|
Medical College of Wisconsin
2 publications, 0.86%
|
|
Villanova University
2 publications, 0.86%
|
|
Bloomsburg University
2 publications, 0.86%
|
|
University of Pennsylvania
2 publications, 0.86%
|
|
University of Alberta
2 publications, 0.86%
|
|
Florida Atlantic University
2 publications, 0.86%
|
|
University of Texas Medical Branch
2 publications, 0.86%
|
|
National Research University Higher School of Economics
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
United Arab Emirates University
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
Ajman University of Science and Technology
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
Beijing Normal University
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
University of Tübingen
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
Jilin University
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
Ghent University
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
Lund University
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
Stockholm University
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
ETH Zurich
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
Malmö University
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
Wuhan University
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
Hebei Medical University
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
University of Basel
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
University of St. Gallen
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
Polytechnic University of Milan
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
University College London
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
University of Oslo
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
University of Bergen
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
Royal Holloway University of London
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
Duke Kunshan University
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
Florida State University
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
William Marsh Rice University
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
National University of Singapore
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
Carnegie Mellon University
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
Queensland University of Technology
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
University of Southampton
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
Yale University
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
Johns Hopkins University
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
Ghent University Hospital
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
University of Trento
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
University of Glasgow
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
Monash University
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
University of Wollongong
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
University of Newcastle Australia
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
Royal Melbourne Hospital
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
Flinders University
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
Charles Sturt University
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
University of Canberra
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
University of Notre Dame Australia
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
Stanford University
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
Clemson University
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
George Mason University
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
West Virginia University
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
New York University
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
Ohio State University
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
University at Buffalo, State University of New York
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
Loyola University Maryland
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
Loyola Marymount University
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
University of Aberdeen
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
University of Chicago
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
University of Texas at Austin
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
National Technical University of Athens
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
Albert Einstein College of Medicine
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
University of Bristol
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
St. Bonaventure University
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
Keele University
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
Oakland University
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
Calvin University
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
Swansea University
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
McGill University
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
Ruhr University Bochum
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
Tulane University
1 publication, 0.43%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
1
2
3
4
5
6
|
Publishing countries
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
|
|
USA
|
USA, 1164, 53.39%
USA
1164 publications, 53.39%
|
United Kingdom
|
United Kingdom, 99, 4.54%
United Kingdom
99 publications, 4.54%
|
Canada
|
Canada, 72, 3.3%
Canada
72 publications, 3.3%
|
Germany
|
Germany, 55, 2.52%
Germany
55 publications, 2.52%
|
Australia
|
Australia, 53, 2.43%
Australia
53 publications, 2.43%
|
China
|
China, 49, 2.25%
China
49 publications, 2.25%
|
Netherlands
|
Netherlands, 35, 1.61%
Netherlands
35 publications, 1.61%
|
Sweden
|
Sweden, 22, 1.01%
Sweden
22 publications, 1.01%
|
Denmark
|
Denmark, 21, 0.96%
Denmark
21 publications, 0.96%
|
Italy
|
Italy, 20, 0.92%
Italy
20 publications, 0.92%
|
Norway
|
Norway, 15, 0.69%
Norway
15 publications, 0.69%
|
Switzerland
|
Switzerland, 15, 0.69%
Switzerland
15 publications, 0.69%
|
Belgium
|
Belgium, 13, 0.6%
Belgium
13 publications, 0.6%
|
South Africa
|
South Africa, 12, 0.55%
South Africa
12 publications, 0.55%
|
Israel
|
Israel, 11, 0.5%
Israel
11 publications, 0.5%
|
Spain
|
Spain, 11, 0.5%
Spain
11 publications, 0.5%
|
France
|
France, 9, 0.41%
France
9 publications, 0.41%
|
New Zealand
|
New Zealand, 9, 0.41%
New Zealand
9 publications, 0.41%
|
Japan
|
Japan, 7, 0.32%
Japan
7 publications, 0.32%
|
Russia
|
Russia, 5, 0.23%
Russia
5 publications, 0.23%
|
Hungary
|
Hungary, 5, 0.23%
Hungary
5 publications, 0.23%
|
Finland
|
Finland, 5, 0.23%
Finland
5 publications, 0.23%
|
Singapore
|
Singapore, 4, 0.18%
Singapore
4 publications, 0.18%
|
USSR
|
USSR, 4, 0.18%
USSR
4 publications, 0.18%
|
Brazil
|
Brazil, 3, 0.14%
Brazil
3 publications, 0.14%
|
Poland
|
Poland, 3, 0.14%
Poland
3 publications, 0.14%
|
Czech Republic
|
Czech Republic, 3, 0.14%
Czech Republic
3 publications, 0.14%
|
Portugal
|
Portugal, 2, 0.09%
Portugal
2 publications, 0.09%
|
Argentina
|
Argentina, 2, 0.09%
Argentina
2 publications, 0.09%
|
Colombia
|
Colombia, 2, 0.09%
Colombia
2 publications, 0.09%
|
Latvia
|
Latvia, 2, 0.09%
Latvia
2 publications, 0.09%
|
Estonia
|
Estonia, 1, 0.05%
Estonia
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Austria
|
Austria, 1, 0.05%
Austria
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Botswana
|
Botswana, 1, 0.05%
Botswana
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Greece
|
Greece, 1, 0.05%
Greece
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Iraq
|
Iraq, 1, 0.05%
Iraq
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Cameroon
|
Cameroon, 1, 0.05%
Cameroon
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Liechtenstein
|
Liechtenstein, 1, 0.05%
Liechtenstein
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Mexico
|
Mexico, 1, 0.05%
Mexico
1 publication, 0.05%
|
UAE
|
UAE, 1, 0.05%
UAE
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Thailand
|
Thailand, 1, 0.05%
Thailand
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Philippines
|
Philippines, 1, 0.05%
Philippines
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Chile
|
Chile, 1, 0.05%
Chile
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Czechoslovakia
|
Czechoslovakia, 1, 0.05%
Czechoslovakia
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Show all (14 more) | |
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
|
Publishing countries in 5 years
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
|
|
USA
|
USA, 123, 52.79%
USA
123 publications, 52.79%
|
United Kingdom
|
United Kingdom, 24, 10.3%
United Kingdom
24 publications, 10.3%
|
Australia
|
Australia, 12, 5.15%
Australia
12 publications, 5.15%
|
Canada
|
Canada, 11, 4.72%
Canada
11 publications, 4.72%
|
Denmark
|
Denmark, 8, 3.43%
Denmark
8 publications, 3.43%
|
Sweden
|
Sweden, 7, 3%
Sweden
7 publications, 3%
|
China
|
China, 6, 2.58%
China
6 publications, 2.58%
|
Netherlands
|
Netherlands, 6, 2.58%
Netherlands
6 publications, 2.58%
|
Germany
|
Germany, 3, 1.29%
Germany
3 publications, 1.29%
|
Spain
|
Spain, 3, 1.29%
Spain
3 publications, 1.29%
|
Italy
|
Italy, 3, 1.29%
Italy
3 publications, 1.29%
|
Switzerland
|
Switzerland, 3, 1.29%
Switzerland
3 publications, 1.29%
|
Latvia
|
Latvia, 2, 0.86%
Latvia
2 publications, 0.86%
|
Norway
|
Norway, 2, 0.86%
Norway
2 publications, 0.86%
|
Poland
|
Poland, 2, 0.86%
Poland
2 publications, 0.86%
|
Singapore
|
Singapore, 2, 0.86%
Singapore
2 publications, 0.86%
|
Russia
|
Russia, 1, 0.43%
Russia
1 publication, 0.43%
|
Estonia
|
Estonia, 1, 0.43%
Estonia
1 publication, 0.43%
|
Belgium
|
Belgium, 1, 0.43%
Belgium
1 publication, 0.43%
|
Greece
|
Greece, 1, 0.43%
Greece
1 publication, 0.43%
|
Israel
|
Israel, 1, 0.43%
Israel
1 publication, 0.43%
|
UAE
|
UAE, 1, 0.43%
UAE
1 publication, 0.43%
|
Czech Republic
|
Czech Republic, 1, 0.43%
Czech Republic
1 publication, 0.43%
|
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
|
1 profile journal article
Bracanović Tomislav
11 publications,
35 citations
h-index: 4
1 profile journal article
Gregg Benjamin
30 publications,
70 citations
h-index: 5