Open Access
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
Are you a researcher?
Create a profile to get free access to personal recommendations for colleagues and new articles.
SCImago
Q1
WOS
Q1
Impact factor
4.7
SJR
1.621
CiteScore
9.1
Categories
Astronomy and Astrophysics
Space and Planetary Science
Areas
Earth and Planetary Sciences
Physics and Astronomy
Years of issue
1986-2025
journal names
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
MON NOT R ASTRON SOC
Top-3 citing journals

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
(918209 citations)

Astrophysical Journal
(570518 citations)

Astronomy and Astrophysics
(346433 citations)
Top-3 organizations

National Institute for Astrophysics
(4783 publications)

University of Cambridge
(3133 publications)

California Institute of Technology
(2906 publications)

National Institute for Astrophysics
(1625 publications)

University of Cambridge
(1004 publications)

Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian
(967 publications)
Top-3 countries
Most cited in 5 years
Found
Publications found: 690
Q1

Assessing the readiness and feasibility to implement a model of care for spine disorders and related disability in Cross Lake, an Indigenous community in northern Manitoba, Canada: a research protocol
Bussières A., Passmore S., Kopansky-Giles D., Tavares P., Ward J., Ladwig J., Glazebrook C., Mior S., Atkinson-Graham M., Moss J., Robak N., Broeckelmann E., Monias D.A., Mckay D.Z., Hamilton H., et. al.
Abstract
Background
Since the 1990s, spine disorders have remained the leading cause of global disability, disproportionately affecting economically marginalized individuals, rural populations, women, and older people. Back pain related disability is projected to increase the most in remote regions where lifestyle and work are increasingly sedentary, yet resources and access to comprehensive healthcare is generally limited. To help tackle this worldwide health problem, World Spine Care Canada, and the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) launched a four-phase project aiming to address the profound gap between evidence-based spine care and routine care delivered to people with spine symptoms or concerns in communities that are medically underserved. Phase 1 conclusions and recommendations led to the development of a model of care that included a triaging system and spine care pathways that could be implemented and scaled in underserved communities around the world.
Methods
The current research protocol describes a site-specific customization and pre-implementation study (Phase 2), as well as a feasibility study (Phase 3) to be conducted in Cross Lake, an Indigenous community in northern Manitoba, Canada. Design: Observational pre-post design using a participatory mixed-methods approach. Relationship building with the community established through regular site visits will enable pre- and post-implementation data collection about the model of spine care and provisionally selected implementation strategies using a community health survey, chart reviews, qualitative interviews, and adoption surveys with key partners at the meso (community leaders) and micro (clinicians, patients, community residents) levels. Recruitment started in March 2023 and will end in March 2026. Surveys will be analyzed descriptively and interviews thematically. Findings will inform co-tailoring of implementation support strategies with project partners prior to evaluating the feasibility of the new spine care program.
Discussion
Knowledge generated from this study will provide essential guidance for scaling up, sustainability and impact (Phase 4) in other northern Canada regions and sites around the globe. It is hoped that implementing the GSCI model of care in Cross Lake will help to reduce the burden of spine problems and related healthcare costs for the local community, and serve as a scalable model for programs in other settings.
Q1

Public perception of chiropractic in the Taiwanese population: a cross-sectional survey
Chang H., de Luca K., Fernandez M., Quinton A.
Abstract
Background
Research on perception of chiropractic is abundant in Western contexts, yet sparse in Asia. This study aims to bridge this gap by examining the perceptions of chiropractic among Taiwanese adults, focusing on demographics, utilisation, beliefs, and understanding.
Methods
An adapted survey with 27 close-ended items was administered to assess Taiwanese adults’ perception of chiropractic. The electronic survey, using Qualtrics, was delivered worldwide via Taiwanese Facebook groups from January 31 to March 31, 2024. Descriptive statistics, including frequencies and cross tabulations, were performed.
Results
A total of 769 individuals were surveyed, with 475 participants providing complete data. Over half of the participants (62%) had never visited a chiropractor, but in those who had visited a chiropractor 78% reported satisfaction. Of 475 participants, 45% considered chiropractic care safe while 34% were unsure. Though almost half (42%) were unclear about what chiropractors do, most participants (67%) expressed interest in learning more. Among the 151 participants with prior experience of chiropractic care, the demographic profile was 54% women, and individuals aged 28 to 37 (44%), and those with an undergraduate degree (52%) were most common.
Conclusion
Overall, our study found a positive perception and high acceptance of chiropractic among the Taiwanese population; however, generalisability may be limited due to the risk of selection bias. An understanding of the chiropractic profession was notably limited. Hence, efforts are needed to enhance awareness of chiropractic accreditation, clinical competencies, and its potential role in public healthcare in Taiwan.
Q1

Development and preliminary validation of the Danish headache questionnaire
Dissing K.B., Jensen R.K., Christensen H.W., Jensen M.E., Lauridsen H.H.
Abstract
Background
The prevalence of headache disorders is imposing a growing burden on public health. Although most patients are seen in primary care, there is an absence of validated questionnaires designed to describe how clinicians manage patients with headache in primary care. The aim of this study was to develop a standardised headache questionnaire for use by primary care clinicians, covering diagnostic procedures, management strategies, and treatment modalities, and to assess the prevalence of consultations for headache in primary care.
Methods
The Danish Headache Questionnaire was developed through a three-phase process: a development phase, a content validation phase via iterative feedback, and a phase to create a generic English version. The Danish Headache Questionnaire includes a survey that covers diagnostic procedures, management strategies, and treatment modalities, and a logbook for tracking the prevalence of consultations for headaches. The questionnaire was tested by Danish chiropractors in primary care from 2020 to 2022.
Results
The Danish Headache Questionnaire underwent several modifications. The survey was expanded to include questions about the Danish profession-specific guideline for managing headaches, different headache types, medical history, radiographic imaging, and potential side effects. The logbook was revised to allow for the documentation of multiple headaches and included a separate form for recording the total number of consultations. The generic version was adapted by removing or adjusting profession-specific terms and questions to suit other clinical environments. The final Danish Headache Questionnaire is available in a generic and a chiropractic-specific format, and was translated to English through a cross-cultural adaptation process.
Conclusions
The Danish Headache Questionnaire has good content validity and is a feasible tool for assessing clinicians’ knowledge in managing patients with headaches and gathering data on headache prevalence in primary care. The generic version promotes a uniform approach and enables comparative analysis across different settings. The Danish Headache Questionnaire may be a valuable instrument guiding teaching a standardised assessment and for clinical assessment in primary care. Furthermore, it may have the potential to fill in gaps of knowledge which could improve the management of headache disorders in primary care.
Q1

A multi-level implementation strategy to increase adoption of chiropractic care for low back pain in primary care clinics: a randomized stepped-wedge pilot study protocol
Roseen E.J., Bussières A., Reichman R., Bora C., Trieu J., Austad K., Williams C., Fischer R.A., Parrilla D., Laird L.D., LaValley M., Evans R.L., Saper R.B., Morone N.E.
Abstract
Introduction
Limited adoption of first line treatments for low back pain (LBP) in primary care settings may contribute to an overreliance on pain medications by primary care providers (PCPs). While chiropractic care typically includes recommended nonpharmacologic approaches (e.g., manual therapy, exercise instruction, advice on self-care), implementation strategies to increase adoption of chiropractic care for LBP in primary care clinics are understudied, particularly in underserved communities.
Methods
We will use a stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled pilot trial design to evaluate the feasibility of a multi-level implementation strategy to increase adoption of chiropractic care for LBP in primary care clinics at community health centers. Key barriers and facilitators identified by site champions and other key stakeholders will help us to develop and tailor implementation strategies including educational materials and meetings, developing a network of local chiropractors, and modifying the electronic health record to facilitate referrals. Three primary care clinics will be randomized to receive the implementation strategy first, second, or third over a fourteen-month study period. At our first clinic, we will have a four-month pre-implementation period, a two-month implementation deployment period, and a subsequent eight-month follow-up period. We will stagger the start of our implementation strategy, beginning in a new clinic every two months. We will evaluate the proportion of patients with LBP who receive a referral to chiropractic care in the first 21 days after their index visit with PCP. We will also evaluate adoption of other guideline concordant care (e.g., other nonpharmacologic treatments) and non-guideline concordant care (e.g., opioids, imaging) over the study period.
Discussion
LBP is currently the leading cause of disability worldwide. While there are several treatment options available for individuals with LBP, patients in underserved populations do not often access recommended nonpharmacologic treatment options such as chiropractic care. The results from this study will inform the development of practical implementation strategies that may improve access to chiropractic care for LBP in the primary care context. Furthermore, results may also inform policy changes needed to expand access to chiropractic care in underserved communities.
Clintrials.gov NCT#
NCT06104605.
Q1

Preliminary insights into the effects of spinal manipulation therapy of different force magnitudes on blood biomarkers of oxidative stress and pro-resolution of inflammation mediators
Duarte F.C., Funabashi M., Starmer D., Partata W.A.
Abstract
Background
Evidence has been reported that spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) leads to spine segmental hypoalgesia through neurophysiological and peripheral mechanisms related to regulating inflammatory biomarker function. However, these studies also showed substantial inter-individual variability in the biomarker responses. Such variability may be due to the incomplete understanding of the fundamental effects of force-based manipulations (e.g., patient-specific force-time characteristics) on a person’s physiology in health and disease. This study investigated the short-term effects of distinct SMT force-time characteristics on blood oxidative stress and pro-resolution of inflammation biomarkers.
Methods
Nineteen healthy adults between 18 and 45 years old were recruited between February and March 2020 before the COVID-19 pandemic and clustered into three groups: control (preload only), target total peak force of 400 N, and 800 N. A validated force-sensing table technology (FSTT®) determined the SMT force-time characteristics. Blood samples were collected at pre-intervention, immediately after SMT, and 20 min post-intervention. Parameters of the oxidant system (total oxidant status, lipid peroxidation and lipid hydroperoxide), the antioxidant system (total antioxidant capacity and bilirubin), and lipid-derived resolvin D1 were evaluated in plasma and erythrocytes through enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and colorimetric assays.
Results
The COVID-19 global pandemic impacted recruitment, and our pre-established target sample size could not be reached. As a result, there was a small sample size, which decreased the robustness of the statistical analysis. Despite the limitations, we observed that 400 N seemed to decrease systemic total oxidant status and lipid peroxidation biomarkers. However, 800 N appeared to transitorily increase these pro-oxidant parameters with a further transitory reduction in plasma total antioxidant capacity and resolvin D1 mediator.
Conclusion
Despite the small sample size, which elevates the risk of type II error (false negatives), and the interruption of recruitment caused by the pandemic, our findings appeared to indicate that different single SMT force-time characteristics presented contrasting effects on the systemic redox signalling biomarkers and pro-resolution of inflammation mediators in healthy participants. The findings need to be confirmed by further research; however, they provide baseline information and guidance for future studies in a clinical population.
Q1

Insights into how manual therapists incorporate the biopsychosocial-enactive model in the care of individuals with CLBP: a qualitative study
Bianchi M., Rossettini G., Cerritelli F., Esteves J.E.
Abstract
Background
Chronic low back pain (CLBP) presents a significant challenge for manual therapists. Recent advancements in pain research have highlighted the limitations of the traditional biomedical and biopsychosocial models, prompting the exploration of alternatives. The biopsychosocial-enactive (BPS-E) model has emerged as a promising alternative. This study aims to explore the application of the BPS-E model by manual therapists in managing CLBP and to initiate a meaningful dialogue about its use.
Methods
This study adhered to the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research. Guided by constructivist grounded theory, we conducted semi-structured interviews with ten manual therapists who are experts in the BPS-E model. Data collection, conceptualization, and analysis were systematically carried out to identify key themes and insights.
Results
The core theme identified was “The person-centred approach,” with three subthemes: “Opportunities in implementing the model”, “Utilizing and Integrating Diverse Skills for Holistic Care”, and “Challenges in implementing the model”.
Conclusion
This study provides insights into how manual therapists incorporate the BPS-E model in their practice, demonstrating its advantages over the traditional biopsychosocial model. The findings highlight the need for further research and training to effectively implement the BPS-E model in clinical settings. This research begins an essential discussion on the potential of the BPS-E model to enhance care for CLBP patients.
Q1

Supported biopsychosocial self-management for back-related leg pain: a randomized feasibility study integrating a whole person perspective
Leininger B., Evans R., Greco C.M., Hanson L., Schulz C., Schneider M., Connett J., Keefe F., Glick R.M., Bronfort G.
Abstract
Background
There is limited high-quality research examining conservative treatments for back-related leg pain (BRLP). This feasibility study was done in preparation for a full-scale trial comparing a whole-person supported self-management intervention to medical care for chronic BRLP.
Methods
Participants were randomized to 12 weeks of individualized supported self-management delivered by physical therapists and chiropractors or medical care consisting of guideline-based pharmacologic care. Supported self-management was based on a behavioral model that used a whole person approach to enhance participants capabilities, opportunities, and motivations to engage in self-care. It combined BRLP education with psychosocial strategies (e.g., relaxed breathing, progressive muscle relaxation, guided imagery, communication skills) and physical modalities such as exercise and spinal manipulation therapy. Providers were trained to address participants’ individualized needs and use behavior change and motivational communication techniques to develop a therapeutic alliance to facilitate self-management. Feasibility was assessed using pre-specified targets for recruitment and enrollment, intervention delivery, and data collection over the six-month study period. In addition, areas for potential refinement and optimization of processes and protocols for the full-scale trial were assessed.
Results
We met or exceeded nearly all feasibility targets. Forty-two participants were enrolled over a six-month period in 2022 and very few individuals declined participation due to preferences for one treatment. All but one participant received treatment and 95% of participants attended the minimum number of visits (self-management = 6, medical care = 2). At 12 weeks, 95% of participants in the self-management group reported engaging in self-management practices learned in the program and 77% of medical care participants reported taking medications as prescribed. Satisfaction with the self-management intervention was high with 85% of participants reporting satisfaction with the program overall. Self-management intervention providers delivered all required activities at 72% of visits. Providers also noted some challenges navigating the shared decision-making process and deciding what self-management tools to prioritize. Over the six-month study period, completion rates were 91% for monthly surveys and 86% for weekly surveys.
Conclusion
We were able to demonstrate that a full-scale randomized trial comparing a whole-person supported self-management intervention to medical care for chronic BRLP is feasible and identified important areas for optimization.
Q1

Patient preferences for chiropractors’ attire: a cross-sectional study of UQTR university-based chiropractic clinic
Leduc L., Théroux J., Marois C., Lavigne G., Blanchette M.
Abstract
Background
A significant body of research has examined how the attire of physicians and nurses affects patients’ perceptions, preferences, and outcomes. However, limited research has focused on the clothing worn by other health professionals, such as chiropractors. The present study aims to explore patients’ preferences and perceptions of chiropractors’ attire.
Methods
Using a cross-sectional image-based procedure, new patients to a university clinic were questioned regarding their preferences for four different attires (casual, formal, scrub, and white coat) worn by both a male and a female chiropractor. Patients also reported their perceptions in terms of chiropractors’ knowledge, trustworthiness, competence, professionalism, and comfortable for each photograph.
Results
From August 10, 2022, to January 23, 2023, 75 new patients participated in the study. Results indicated a strong preference for scrubs for both male and female chiropractors. Chiropractors in scrubs were also seen as more knowledgeable, trustworthy, competent, and professional, and comfortable. This was closely followed by those wearing white coats and formal attire. Notably, the white coat worn by the female chiropractor received significantly more positive ratings than when worn by her male counterpart.
Conclusion
In conclusion, our findings suggest that chiropractors’ attire influences patients’ perceptions and should be considered in the development of dress codes for public and private clinics. Further research is essential to understand better how the gender and age of care providers affect patient evaluations.
Q1

'Which treatment do you believe you received?' A randomised blinding feasibility trial of spinal manual therapy
Muñoz Laguna J., Kurmann A., Hofstetter L., Nyantakyi E., Braun J., Clack L., Bang H., Farshad M., Foster N.E., Puhan M.A., Hincapié C.A., Mühlemann M., Caviezel C., Ehrler M., Häusler M., et. al.
Abstract
Background
Blinding is essential for mitigating biases in trials of low back pain (LBP). Our main objectives were to assess the feasibility of blinding: (1) participants randomly allocated to active or placebo spinal manual therapy (SMT), and (2) outcome assessors. We also explored blinding by levels of SMT lifetime experience and recent LBP, and factors contributing to beliefs about the assigned intervention.
Methods
A two-parallel-arm, single-centre, placebo-controlled, blinding feasibility trial. Adults were randomised to active SMT (n = 40) or placebo SMT (n = 41). Participants attended two study visits for their assigned intervention, on average seven days apart. The primary outcome was participant blinding (beliefs about assigned intervention) using the Bang blinding index (BI) at two study visits. The Bang BI is arm-specific, chance-corrected, and ranges from − 1 (all incorrect beliefs) to 1 (all correct beliefs), with 0 indicating equal proportions of correct and incorrect beliefs. Secondary outcomes included factors contributing to beliefs about the assigned intervention.
Results
Of 85 adults screened, 81 participants were randomised (41 [51%] with SMT lifetime experience; 29 [39%] with recent LBP), and 80 (99%) completed follow-up. At study visit 1, 50% of participants in the active SMT arm (Bang BI: 0.50 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.26 to 0.74]) and 37% in the placebo SMT arm (0.37 [95% CI, 0.10 to 0.63]) had a correct belief about their assigned intervention, beyond chance. At study visit 2, BIs were 0.36 (0.08 to 0.64) and 0.29 (0.01 to 0.57) for participants in the active and placebo SMT arms, respectively. BIs among outcome assessors suggested adequate blinding at both study visits (active SMT: 0.08 [− 0.05 to 0.20] and 0.03 [− 0.11 to 0.16]; placebo SMT: − 0.12 [− 0.24 to 0.00] and − 0.07 [− 0.21 to 0.07]). BIs varied by participant levels of SMT lifetime experience and recent LBP. Participants and outcome assessors described different factors contributing to their beliefs.
Conclusions
Adequate blinding of participants assigned to active SMT may not be feasible with the intervention protocol studied, whereas blinding of participants in the placebo SMT arm may be feasible. Blinding of outcome assessors seemed adequate. Further methodological work on blinding of SMT is needed.
Trial registration number
NCT05778396.
Q1

Chiropractic international research collaborative (CIRCuit): the development of a new practice-based research network, including the demographics, practice, and clinical management characteristics of clinician participants
Young K.J., Aspinall S., Mior S., Gliedt J., Spencer J., Børsheim C., Nash J., Ricci M., Shurr J., Axén I.
Abstract
Objectives
To describe the structure and development of a new international, chiropractic, practice-based research network (PBRN), the Chiropractic International Research Collaborative (CIRCuit), as well as the demographic, practice, and clinical management characteristics of its clinician participants. An electronic survey was used to collect information on their demographics, practice, and clinical management characteristics from clinicians from 17 October through 28 November 2022. Descriptive statistics were used to report the results.
Background
PBRNs are an increasingly popular way of facilitating clinic-based studies. They provide the opportunity to collaboratively develop research projects involving researchers, clinicians, patients and support groups. We are unaware of any international PBRNs, or any that have a steering group comprised of equal numbers of clinicians representing the different international regions.
Results
77 chiropractors responded to the survey (0.7% of EBCN-FB members). 48 were men (62%), 29 women (38%). Thirty-six (47%) were in North America, 18 (23%) in Europe, and 15 (19%) in Oceania. Participants reported predominantly treating musculoskeletal issues, often with high-velocity, low-amplitude spinal manipulation (95%), but also with soft tissue therapy (95%), exercise (95%), and other home care (up to 100%).
Methods
The development of CIRCuit is described narratively. Members of the Evidence-Based Chiropractic Network Facebook group (EBCN-FB) were invited to become clinician participants by participating in the survey.
Conclusions
This paper describes the development of a new PBRN for chiropractors. It offers a unique opportunity to facilitate the engagement of clinical chiropractors with research, as well as for academics to readily be able to access an international cohort of clinicians to collaboratively develop and conduct research. Although the results of the survey are not statistically generalisable, the initial cohort of CIRCuit clinician participants use similar techniques on similar types of conditions as the profession at large. The international structure is unique among PBRNs and offers the opportunity to help develop innovative research projects.
Q1

The association between individual radiographic findings and improvement after chiropractic spinal manipulation and home exercise among older adults with back-related disability: a secondary analysis
Maiers M.J., Albertson A.K., Major C., Mendenhall H., Petrie C.P.
Abstract
Background
Some chiropractors use spinal x-rays to inform care, but the relationship between radiographic findings and outcomes is unclear. This study examined the association between radiographic findings and 30% improvement in back-related disability in older adults after receiving 12 weeks of chiropractic spinal manipulation and home exercise instruction.
Methods
This IRB-approved secondary analysis used randomized trial data of community-dwelling adults age ≥ 65 with chronic spinal pain and disability. Data were collected during the parent trial between January 2010-December 2014. The primary outcome of the parent study was ≥ 30% improvement in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at 12 weeks, a clinically important response to care. In this secondary analysis, two chiropractic radiologists independently assessed digital lumbar radiographs for pre-specified anatomic, degenerative, and alignment factors; differences were adjudicated. The unadjusted association between baseline radiographic factors and 30% ODI improvement was determined using chi-square tests.
Results
From the parent trial, 120 adults with baseline lumbar radiographs were included in this study. Mean age was 70.4 years (range 65–81); 59.2% were female. Mean baseline disability (ODI = 25.6) and back pain (5.2, 0–10 scale) were moderate. Disc degeneration (53.3% moderate, 13.3% severe), anterolisthesis (53.3%), retrolisthesis (36.6%) and scoliosis (35.0%) were common among the participant sample. After 12-weeks of treatment, 51 (42.5%) participants achieved 30% improvement in back disability. No alignment, degenerative, or anatomic factors were associated with ODI improvement at 12 weeks (all p > 0.05), regardless of severity of radiographic findings.
Conclusion
We found no association between a predetermined subset of radiographic findings and improvement in back-related disability among this sample of older adults. As such, this study provides preliminary data suggesting that imaging may be unhelpful for predicting response to chiropractic spinal manipulation and home exercise.
Q1

Provider kinematic strategies during the delivery of spinal manipulation and mobilization: a scoping review of the literature
Svoboda K., Howarth S.J., Funabashi M., Gorrell L.M.
Abstract
Background
Spinal manipulation (MAN) and mobilization (MOB) are biomechanically different yet both elicit pain reduction and increased range of motion. Previous investigations have focused on quantifying kinetics (e.g., applied forces) or, recipient kinematics (i.e., movements) during MAN and MOB. While these studies provide valuable information, they do not report on the strategies adopted by providers when performing the complex motor tasks of MAN and MOB. This review sought to synthesise the literature reporting on provider kinematics during the delivery of MAN and MOB.
Methods
This scoping literature review is reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) statement. MEDLINE (Ovid), PsychINFO, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, PEDro, ICL and CINAHL databases were searched from inception to September 2023 for terms relating to provider kinematics during the delivery of MAN and MOB. Data were extracted and reported descriptively, including: general study characteristics, number and characteristics of individuals who delivered/received MAN and/or MOB, region treated, equipment used and kinematic parameters of the individual delivering the procedure.
Results
Of 4,844 records identified, five (0.1%) fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in the analysis. Of these, provider kinematics were reported for the delivery of MAN in four (80%) and for the delivery of MOB in one (20%) article. Practitioners applied the procedure in all (100%) and students in one (20%) study. Spinal regions treated were: lumbar (n = 4), thoracic (n = 2) and cervical (n = 1). Data were reported heterogeneously but were most commonly captured using either video or motion capture equipment (n = 4, 80%). The direction of applied force was fully reported in one (20%) and only partially reported (one spinal region) in another study.
Conclusions
There are a small number of studies reporting heterogeneously on provider kinematics during the delivery of MAN and MOB. Clear reporting of the procedure from a biomechanical perspective and of the measurement equipment used could enable future meta-analysis of provider kinematic data, the use of provider kinematic data in the development of technique skills curricula and could feasibly be used to mitigate risk of injury for providers.
Q1

Diagnostic imaging in the management of older adults with low back pain: analysis from the BAck Complaints in Elders: Chiropractic – Australia cohort study
Jenkins H.J., Grace K., Young A., Parker F., Hartvigsen J., Rubinstein S.M., French S.D., de Luca K.
Abstract
Background
Diagnostic imaging is commonly used in the management of low back pain (LBP), with approximately one-quarter of those who present to primary care referred for imaging. Current estimates of imaging frequency commonly exclude older adults; however, pathology detected with imaging (e.g., osteoporosis, cancer) may occur more frequently in older populations. The aims of this study were to: (i) determine the frequency and forms of diagnostic imaging use in older adults presenting for chiropractic care for LBP in Australia; (ii) describe participant characteristics associated with imaging use; and (iii) describe the types of radiographic findings.
Methods
Data were collected from the BAck Complaints in Elders: Chiropractic-Australia (BACE: C-A) study, a 12-month, prospective cohort study of adults aged ≥ 55 years with a new episode of LBP. Self-reported frequency of imaging use (baseline, 2 and 6 weeks, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months) was reported descriptively by imaging modality. Imaging reports were obtained, and imaging findings were independently extracted and categorised. Baseline characteristics were assessed for differences in those who received imaging compared to those who did not. Proportions of imaging use and imaging findings were presented descriptively with 95% confidence intervals.
Results
The BACE: C-A cohort comprised 217 participants of whom 60.8% reported receiving diagnostic imaging for their current episode of LBP. X-ray was performed most (44.7%), followed by computed tomography (CT) (30.8%). Participants receiving imaging reported higher low back disability, more healthcare use for LBP, more frequent leg pain, more suspected serious pathology, and stronger beliefs that imaging was important. Degenerative changes were the most common imaging finding (96.6%). Pathology of possible clinical significance, including compression fracture or suspected osteoporosis, was present in 15.5% of participants.
Conclusion
Three out of five older adults with LBP who sought chiropractic care received imaging over one-year. Participants receiving imaging tended to have more complex presentations (e.g., more disability, suspected underlying pathology) or stronger beliefs that imaging was necessary for the management of LBP. Degenerative changes were the most common imaging finding. Pathology of potential clinical relevance was present on approximately 15% of imaging reports received. No conditions requiring immediate medical attention were reported.
Q1

Factors that contribute to the perceived treatment effect of spinal manipulative therapy in a chiropractic teaching clinic: a qualitative study
Boylan P.
Abstract
Background
Despite the progress made in better understanding the potential mechanisms of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) and its treatment effects, a knowledge gap continues to exist when identifying the specific factors that contribute to the perceived treatment effect associated with SMT. The purpose of the study was to explore the perceptions of chiropractic clinicians, interns, and patients regarding what factors during a doctor-patient encounter contribute to the perceived treatment effect associated with SMT.
Methods
This study used convenience sampling to enroll participants from a chiropractic teaching clinic in the United States. Semi-structured interviews were used as the main form of data collection, which took place from January-April 2024. The data was subsequently analyzed using thematic analysis and organized into themes through an iterative open coding process.
Results
Six rounds of interviews were conducted for a total of 18 interviews. Each round consisted of one patient who received treatment including SMT, one intern who performed the treatment, and one clinician who oversaw the treatment. After analyzing the interview data, the following five themes were identified: Treatment Outcome, Therapeutic Alliance, Adjunctive Therapies, Significance of Cavitation, and Psychomotor Skills. Each theme consisted of multiple subthemes which were mentioned by the participant groups at varying frequencies. Patients frequently mentioned the importance of improvement in symptoms following treatment, as well as good communication skills and the use of adjunctive therapies. Interns valued functional change following treatment, while clinicians focused on confidence levels and psychomotor skills. There were differing views on the significance of cavitation, ranging from indifference to an indication of a successful treatment.
Conclusion
This qualitative study identified several themes which describe factors that may contribute to the perceived effect associated with SMT. In addition to the psychomotor skills required to perform SMT, educators and practitioners should consider factors such as the therapeutic alliance between patient and provider, use of adjunctive therapies, and assessment of the outcome associated with the intervention.
Q1

Cross cultural adaptation and validation of the Hindi version of foot function index
Sidiq M., Chahal A., Sharma J., Rai R.H., Kashoo F.Z., Jayavelu J., Kashyap N., Vajrala K.R., Veeragoudhaman T.S., Arasu V., Janakiraman B.
Abstract
Background
The Foot Function Index (FFI) is a reliable and widely used standardized questionnaire that measures the impact of foot pathology on function. With 571 million Hindi-speaking people living globally and an increasing incidence of foot-related pathologies, it is imperative to cross-culturally translate and adapt a Hindi version of the FFI (FFI-Hi). We aimed to translate, cross-cultural adapt, and psychometrically test the FFI-Hi for use in Hindi-speaking individuals with foot conditions.
Methods
The translation of FFI-Hi was performed according to guidelines given by MAPI Research Trust. A total of 223 Hindi-speaking participants afflicted with foot conditions completed the FFI-Hi alongside the Short Form 36 (SF-36) questionnaire. The study duration spanned between October 2023 and January 2024. The initial phase was the translation and adaptation of FFI to cultural context. Followed by testing of psychometric properties involving of 133 participants for the test-retest reliability of FFI-Hi after a 7-day interval.
Results
The mean age of the participants was 47.10 (± 8.1) years. The majority of the participants were male (n = 148, 66.4%) and the most common foot condition was plantar fasciopathy (n = 91, 40.8%). The mean score of FF-Hi was 33.7 ± 11.7. The internal consistency of FFI-Hi was good with the Cronbach’s alpha (α) value of 0.891 and excellent reproducibility with the intra-class correlation of 0.90. The 95% minimal detectable change (MCD) and the standard error of measurement of the FFI-Hi was 22.02 and 7.94 respectively. Convergent validity between FFI-Hi subscales and SF-36 domains was moderate. Factor analysis corroborated the multidimensional nature of the FFI-Hi.
Conclusion
The FFI-Hindi version was successfully cross-culturally adapted, translated and demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties to be used in clinical practice and research. Further, the context-specific Hindi language version of FFI will enhance the utility of FFI in foot function evaluation and remove language barrier in patients reporting disability and activity limitation related to foot conditions.
Registration
Clinical Trials Registry of India (CTRI/2023/07/055734).
Top-100
Citing journals
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
800000
900000
1000000
|
|
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
918209 citations, 32.6%
|
|
Astrophysical Journal
570518 citations, 20.26%
|
|
Astronomy and Astrophysics
346433 citations, 12.3%
|
|
Physical Review D
76191 citations, 2.71%
|
|
Astronomical Journal
68995 citations, 2.45%
|
|
Astrophysical Journal Letters
56609 citations, 2.01%
|
|
Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics
44982 citations, 1.6%
|
|
Astrophysical Journal, Supplement Series
40564 citations, 1.44%
|
|
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters
27616 citations, 0.98%
|
|
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union
25185 citations, 0.89%
|
|
Astrophysics and Space Science
21009 citations, 0.75%
|
|
Publication of the Astronomical Society of Japan
16891 citations, 0.6%
|
|
Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics
16388 citations, 0.58%
|
|
Astrophysics and Space Science Library
13326 citations, 0.47%
|
|
Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific
12829 citations, 0.46%
|
|
Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics
12055 citations, 0.43%
|
|
Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia
12051 citations, 0.43%
|
|
Astronomische Nachrichten
11729 citations, 0.42%
|
|
Nature
11622 citations, 0.41%
|
|
Space Science Reviews
10898 citations, 0.39%
|
|
Universe
10441 citations, 0.37%
|
|
Galaxies
9880 citations, 0.35%
|
|
New Astronomy Reviews
8507 citations, 0.3%
|
|
New Astronomy
8206 citations, 0.29%
|
|
Nature Astronomy
8198 citations, 0.29%
|
|
Physical Review Letters
7702 citations, 0.27%
|
|
Classical and Quantum Gravity
7423 citations, 0.26%
|
|
European Physical Journal C
7244 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Astronomy and Astrophysics Review
6717 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Astronomy Reports
6592 citations, 0.23%
|
|
International Journal of Modern Physics D
6402 citations, 0.23%
|
|
Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy
6151 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Journal of Physics: Conference Series
5863 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Advances in Space Research
5730 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences
5721 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Icarus
5342 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Physics Reports
4968 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Physics of the Dark Universe
4949 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Astronomy Letters
4910 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Reports on Progress in Physics
4113 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Astronomy and Astrophysics Library
4037 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Solar Physics
3745 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Science
3738 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Symposium - International Astronomical Union
3423 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Lecture Notes in Physics
3422 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Physics Letters, Section B: Nuclear, Elementary Particle and High-Energy Physics
3352 citations, 0.12%
|
|
General Relativity and Gravitation
3175 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Living Reviews in Relativity
3130 citations, 0.11%
|
|
EAS Publications Series
3089 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Astronomy and Computing
3084 citations, 0.11%
|
|
EPJ Web of Conferences
2989 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Planetary and Space Science
2823 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Astrophysics
2817 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Reviews of Modern Physics
2816 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Astrophysical Bulletin
2721 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Science China: Physics, Mechanics and Astronomy
2665 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Springer Theses
2583 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Astroparticle Physics
2520 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Journal of High Energy Astrophysics
2519 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Red Giants as Probes of the Structure and Evolution of the Milky Way
2514 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Experimental Astronomy
2489 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Research Notes of the AAS
2412 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer
2373 citations, 0.08%
|
|
European Physical Journal Plus
2308 citations, 0.08%
|
|
Physica Scripta
2237 citations, 0.08%
|
|
Chinese Astronomy and Astrophysics
2220 citations, 0.08%
|
|
Physics of Plasmas
2122 citations, 0.08%
|
|
The Earth's Cryosphere and Sea Level Change
2063 citations, 0.07%
|
|
Chinese Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics
2048 citations, 0.07%
|
|
Advances in Astronomy
2007 citations, 0.07%
|
|
Modern Physics Letters A
1957 citations, 0.07%
|
|
Journal of High Energy Physics
1899 citations, 0.07%
|
|
Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy
1871 citations, 0.07%
|
|
The Planetary Science Journal
1750 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences
1691 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Physical Review E
1639 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Journal of Chemical Physics
1526 citations, 0.05%
|
|
International Astronomical Union Colloquium
1419 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Proceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering
1400 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Physical Review A
1389 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Journal of Plasma Physics
1388 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Symmetry
1380 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Journal of Geophysical Research
1364 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements
1336 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Physical Review C
1285 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
1278 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Vistas in Astronomy
1251 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Uspekhi Fizicheskih Nauk
1178 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Journal of Computational Physics
1148 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Astronomy and Geophysics
1082 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics
1046 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Earth, Moon and Planets
1023 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Living Reviews in Computational Astrophysics
973 citations, 0.03%
|
|
International Journal of Modern Physics A
908 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics
906 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Eso Astrophysics Symposia
906 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics
896 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Journal of Physical Chemistry A
880 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Canadian Journal of Physics
876 citations, 0.03%
|
|
International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics
861 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
800000
900000
1000000
|
Citing publishers
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
800000
900000
1000000
|
|
Oxford University Press
967594 citations, 34.36%
|
|
American Astronomical Society
682044 citations, 24.22%
|
|
EDP Sciences
353132 citations, 12.54%
|
|
IOP Publishing
166428 citations, 5.91%
|
|
Springer Nature
152772 citations, 5.42%
|
|
American Physical Society (APS)
93049 citations, 3.3%
|
|
Elsevier
84704 citations, 3.01%
|
|
Cambridge University Press
63426 citations, 2.25%
|
|
MDPI
26462 citations, 0.94%
|
|
Wiley
21074 citations, 0.75%
|
|
Pleiades Publishing
18664 citations, 0.66%
|
|
Annual Reviews
13551 citations, 0.48%
|
|
World Scientific
12200 citations, 0.43%
|
|
AIP Publishing
7062 citations, 0.25%
|
|
Frontiers Media S.A.
6481 citations, 0.23%
|
|
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
4739 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Taylor & Francis
4300 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
4237 citations, 0.15%
|
|
The Royal Society
3486 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Science in China Press
3228 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Hindawi Limited
2936 citations, 0.1%
|
|
SPIE-Intl Soc Optical Eng
2746 citations, 0.1%
|
|
American Chemical Society (ACS)
2470 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Uspekhi Fizicheskikh Nauk Journal
2078 citations, 0.07%
|
|
Optica Publishing Group
2023 citations, 0.07%
|
|
American Geophysical Union
1687 citations, 0.06%
|
|
The Russian Academy of Sciences
1489 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)
1396 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Canadian Science Publishing
956 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)
853 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Astronomical Society of Korea
848 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Walter de Gruyter
725 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Mary Ann Liebert
664 citations, 0.02%
|
|
SAGE
489 citations, 0.02%
|
|
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)
430 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Copernicus
420 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Mineralogical Society of America
394 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
389 citations, 0.01%
|
|
F1000 Research
351 citations, 0.01%
|
|
The Open Journal
335 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Stichting SciPost
325 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Scientific Research Publishing
319 citations, 0.01%
|
|
National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (Co. LTD Ukrinformnauka) (Publications)
311 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Astronomical Observatory
273 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM)
237 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Institute of Mathematical Statistics
232 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Societa Italiana di Fisica
194 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Acta Physica Sinica, Chinese Physical Society and Institute of Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences
188 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv
178 citations, 0.01%
|
|
IntechOpen
172 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico
159 citations, 0.01%
|
|
The Korean Space Science Society
158 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
141 citations, 0.01%
|
|
American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT)
141 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
127 citations, 0%
|
|
Physical Society of Japan
124 citations, 0%
|
|
National Space Science Center, Chinese Academy of Sciences
124 citations, 0%
|
|
Social Science Electronic Publishing
109 citations, 0%
|
|
The Korean Astronomical Society
109 citations, 0%
|
|
Japan Academy
92 citations, 0%
|
|
Infra-M Academic Publishing House
92 citations, 0%
|
|
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
90 citations, 0%
|
|
84 citations, 0%
|
|
Emerald
81 citations, 0%
|
|
Trans Tech Publications
77 citations, 0%
|
|
Institute of Molecular Biology and Genetics (NAS Ukraine)
72 citations, 0%
|
|
ASME International
69 citations, 0%
|
|
Geological Society of London
69 citations, 0%
|
|
University of Chicago Press
66 citations, 0%
|
|
Steklov Mathematical Institute
62 citations, 0%
|
|
Allerton Press
61 citations, 0%
|
|
Japan Society of Civil Engineers
58 citations, 0%
|
|
American Mathematical Society
57 citations, 0%
|
|
Keldysh Institute of Applied Mathematics
55 citations, 0%
|
|
American Meteorological Society
52 citations, 0%
|
|
Masaryk University Press
47 citations, 0%
|
|
IGI Global
46 citations, 0%
|
|
Academia Brasileira de Ciencias
42 citations, 0%
|
|
American Institute of Mathematical Sciences (AIMS)
39 citations, 0%
|
|
American Vacuum Society
39 citations, 0%
|
|
Ubiquity Press
38 citations, 0%
|
|
Lviv Polytechnic National University
33 citations, 0%
|
|
Stockholm University Press
31 citations, 0%
|
|
Research Square Platform LLC
30 citations, 0%
|
|
IOS Press
28 citations, 0%
|
|
Editora Edgard Blucher, Ltda.
28 citations, 0%
|
|
Ivan Franko National University of Lviv
27 citations, 0%
|
|
Hans Publishers
27 citations, 0%
|
|
Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET)
26 citations, 0%
|
|
CSIRO Publishing
26 citations, 0%
|
|
Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.
22 citations, 0%
|
|
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
21 citations, 0%
|
|
Acoustical Society of America (ASA)
20 citations, 0%
|
|
Mathematical Sciences Publishers
20 citations, 0%
|
|
Portico
20 citations, 0%
|
|
International Union of Crystallography (IUCr)
19 citations, 0%
|
|
MIT Press
18 citations, 0%
|
|
Carnegie Mellon University
18 citations, 0%
|
|
Moscow University Press
18 citations, 0%
|
|
17 citations, 0%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
800000
900000
1000000
|
Publishing organizations
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
|
|
National Institute for Astrophysics
4783 publications, 5.37%
|
|
University of Cambridge
3133 publications, 3.51%
|
|
California Institute of Technology
2906 publications, 3.26%
|
|
Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian
2894 publications, 3.25%
|
|
University College London
2679 publications, 3.01%
|
|
University of Oxford
2669 publications, 2.99%
|
|
University of Manchester
2186 publications, 2.45%
|
|
Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias
2154 publications, 2.42%
|
|
University of Edinburgh
2132 publications, 2.39%
|
|
Leiden University
1968 publications, 2.21%
|
|
University of California, Berkeley
1785 publications, 2%
|
|
European Southern Observatory
1777 publications, 1.99%
|
|
Sorbonne University
1706 publications, 1.91%
|
|
Australian National University
1678 publications, 1.88%
|
|
Max Planck Institute for Astronomy
1653 publications, 1.85%
|
|
University of La Laguna
1625 publications, 1.82%
|
|
Space Telescope Science Institute
1593 publications, 1.79%
|
|
University of Sydney
1591 publications, 1.78%
|
|
University of Leicester
1565 publications, 1.76%
|
|
Observatoire de Paris
1539 publications, 1.73%
|
|
University of Arizona
1535 publications, 1.72%
|
|
University of Tokyo
1534 publications, 1.72%
|
|
National Astronomical Observatories, Chinese Academy of Sciences
1527 publications, 1.71%
|
|
University of Southampton
1522 publications, 1.71%
|
|
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization
1455 publications, 1.63%
|
|
Heidelberg University
1439 publications, 1.61%
|
|
Durham University
1336 publications, 1.5%
|
|
Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics
1335 publications, 1.5%
|
|
Princeton University
1329 publications, 1.49%
|
|
Swinburne University of Technology
1314 publications, 1.47%
|
|
Liverpool John Moores University
1295 publications, 1.45%
|
|
National Autonomous University of Mexico
1276 publications, 1.43%
|
|
Goddard Space Flight Center
1171 publications, 1.31%
|
|
University of Texas at Austin
1136 publications, 1.27%
|
|
University of Amsterdam
1128 publications, 1.27%
|
|
Astronomical Observatory of Padova
1101 publications, 1.24%
|
|
Paris Cité University
1090 publications, 1.22%
|
|
University of St Andrews
1089 publications, 1.22%
|
|
National Institute for Nuclear Physics
1087 publications, 1.22%
|
|
University of Sussex
1040 publications, 1.17%
|
|
Johns Hopkins University
1035 publications, 1.16%
|
|
University of Warwick
1030 publications, 1.16%
|
|
University of Toronto
1009 publications, 1.13%
|
|
Ohio State University
998 publications, 1.12%
|
|
Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics
993 publications, 1.11%
|
|
University of Michigan
993 publications, 1.11%
|
|
University of Western Australia
992 publications, 1.11%
|
|
Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy
981 publications, 1.1%
|
|
University of Padua
965 publications, 1.08%
|
|
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
961 publications, 1.08%
|
|
Cardiff University
961 publications, 1.08%
|
|
University of California, Santa Cruz
956 publications, 1.07%
|
|
Imperial College London
920 publications, 1.03%
|
|
National Astronomical Observatory of Japan
893 publications, 1%
|
|
Tata Institute of Fundamental Research
884 publications, 0.99%
|
|
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences
874 publications, 0.98%
|
|
University of Groningen
871 publications, 0.98%
|
|
University of Birmingham
848 publications, 0.95%
|
|
Stanford University
847 publications, 0.95%
|
|
University of Geneva
844 publications, 0.95%
|
|
University of Cape Town
843 publications, 0.95%
|
|
University of Nottingham
838 publications, 0.94%
|
|
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
832 publications, 0.93%
|
|
Pennsylvania State University
831 publications, 0.93%
|
|
Astronomical Observatory of Rome
824 publications, 0.92%
|
|
University of Bologna
818 publications, 0.92%
|
|
University of Portsmouth
813 publications, 0.91%
|
|
University of Chicago
810 publications, 0.91%
|
|
Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology
807 publications, 0.91%
|
|
University of Copenhagen
793 publications, 0.89%
|
|
Brera Astronomical Observatory
789 publications, 0.89%
|
|
Monash University
785 publications, 0.88%
|
|
Macquarie University
785 publications, 0.88%
|
|
Trieste Astronomical Observatory
781 publications, 0.88%
|
|
Paris Sciences et Lettres
781 publications, 0.88%
|
|
Columbia University
775 publications, 0.87%
|
|
Leibniz Institute for Astrophysics Potsdam
774 publications, 0.87%
|
|
University of New South Wales
770 publications, 0.86%
|
|
Aix-Marseille University
768 publications, 0.86%
|
|
Autonomous University of Madrid
767 publications, 0.86%
|
|
Peking University
765 publications, 0.86%
|
|
Keele University
750 publications, 0.84%
|
|
Stockholm University
735 publications, 0.82%
|
|
University of Maryland, College Park
735 publications, 0.82%
|
|
Yale University
734 publications, 0.82%
|
|
Arcetri Astrophysical Observatory
733 publications, 0.82%
|
|
Inter-University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics
715 publications, 0.8%
|
|
Lomonosov Moscow State University
709 publications, 0.8%
|
|
University of Victoria
702 publications, 0.79%
|
|
University of Sheffield
698 publications, 0.78%
|
|
Shanghai Astronomical Observatory, Chinese Academy of Sciences
684 publications, 0.77%
|
|
Netherlands Institute for Radio Astronomy
670 publications, 0.75%
|
|
ETH Zurich
663 publications, 0.74%
|
|
University of the Western Cape
657 publications, 0.74%
|
|
Queen Mary University of London
653 publications, 0.73%
|
|
Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich
644 publications, 0.72%
|
|
Tel Aviv University
643 publications, 0.72%
|
|
University of Melbourne
636 publications, 0.71%
|
|
Queen's University Belfast
634 publications, 0.71%
|
|
University of Colorado Boulder
630 publications, 0.71%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
|
Publishing organizations in 5 years
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
|
|
National Institute for Astrophysics
1625 publications, 8.69%
|
|
University of Cambridge
1004 publications, 5.37%
|
|
Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian
967 publications, 5.17%
|
|
California Institute of Technology
885 publications, 4.73%
|
|
Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias
827 publications, 4.42%
|
|
University of Oxford
755 publications, 4.04%
|
|
Sorbonne University
749 publications, 4.01%
|
|
University College London
732 publications, 3.92%
|
|
University of La Laguna
717 publications, 3.84%
|
|
Leiden University
677 publications, 3.62%
|
|
National Astronomical Observatories, Chinese Academy of Sciences
665 publications, 3.56%
|
|
Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics
614 publications, 3.29%
|
|
Max Planck Institute for Astronomy
610 publications, 3.26%
|
|
University of Edinburgh
607 publications, 3.25%
|
|
National Institute for Nuclear Physics
588 publications, 3.15%
|
|
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences
585 publications, 3.13%
|
|
University of Tokyo
572 publications, 3.06%
|
|
University of Manchester
567 publications, 3.03%
|
|
University of Arizona
560 publications, 3%
|
|
Space Telescope Science Institute
557 publications, 2.98%
|
|
Heidelberg University
555 publications, 2.97%
|
|
Australian National University
549 publications, 2.94%
|
|
Princeton University
547 publications, 2.93%
|
|
University of California, Berkeley
534 publications, 2.86%
|
|
European Southern Observatory
517 publications, 2.77%
|
|
National Autonomous University of Mexico
513 publications, 2.74%
|
|
Durham University
498 publications, 2.66%
|
|
Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics
494 publications, 2.64%
|
|
Observatoire de Paris
486 publications, 2.6%
|
|
Paris Sciences et Lettres
466 publications, 2.49%
|
|
Ohio State University
449 publications, 2.4%
|
|
University of Warwick
442 publications, 2.36%
|
|
University of Geneva
440 publications, 2.35%
|
|
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
436 publications, 2.33%
|
|
University of Southampton
428 publications, 2.29%
|
|
Swinburne University of Technology
426 publications, 2.28%
|
|
University of Michigan
414 publications, 2.21%
|
|
University of Western Australia
411 publications, 2.2%
|
|
National Astronomical Observatory of Japan
395 publications, 2.11%
|
|
Astronomical Observatory of Padova
378 publications, 2.02%
|
|
Goddard Space Flight Center
376 publications, 2.01%
|
|
Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich
368 publications, 1.97%
|
|
University of Texas at Austin
366 publications, 1.96%
|
|
University of Groningen
363 publications, 1.94%
|
|
Liverpool John Moores University
358 publications, 1.92%
|
|
Stanford University
353 publications, 1.89%
|
|
Macquarie University
352 publications, 1.88%
|
|
Peking University
349 publications, 1.87%
|
|
University of Sydney
346 publications, 1.85%
|
|
Université Paris-Saclay
343 publications, 1.84%
|
|
University of Toronto
342 publications, 1.83%
|
|
University of Amsterdam
340 publications, 1.82%
|
|
Trieste Astronomical Observatory
338 publications, 1.81%
|
|
Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy
332 publications, 1.78%
|
|
Leibniz Institute for Astrophysics Potsdam
331 publications, 1.77%
|
|
Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology
330 publications, 1.77%
|
|
Aix-Marseille University
328 publications, 1.75%
|
|
Stockholm University
327 publications, 1.75%
|
|
University of Chicago
325 publications, 1.74%
|
|
Shanghai Astronomical Observatory, Chinese Academy of Sciences
323 publications, 1.73%
|
|
Astrophysics and Space Science Observatory of Bologna
322 publications, 1.72%
|
|
University of California, Santa Cruz
318 publications, 1.7%
|
|
Johns Hopkins University
315 publications, 1.69%
|
|
University of Portsmouth
313 publications, 1.67%
|
|
Inter-University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics
301 publications, 1.61%
|
|
Autonomous University of Madrid
299 publications, 1.6%
|
|
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization
293 publications, 1.57%
|
|
Paris Cité University
291 publications, 1.56%
|
|
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
290 publications, 1.55%
|
|
University of Padua
280 publications, 1.5%
|
|
Institute for Fundamental Physics of the Universe
276 publications, 1.48%
|
|
University of Copenhagen
275 publications, 1.47%
|
|
Tata Institute of Fundamental Research
271 publications, 1.45%
|
|
Arcetri Astrophysical Observatory
270 publications, 1.44%
|
|
University of Birmingham
268 publications, 1.43%
|
|
Monash University
267 publications, 1.43%
|
|
University of the Western Cape
259 publications, 1.39%
|
|
Cardiff University
259 publications, 1.39%
|
|
University of Bologna
258 publications, 1.38%
|
|
University of Maryland, College Park
256 publications, 1.37%
|
|
Tsinghua University
251 publications, 1.34%
|
|
Northwestern University
244 publications, 1.31%
|
|
University of Cape Town
242 publications, 1.29%
|
|
Netherlands Institute for Radio Astronomy
241 publications, 1.29%
|
|
University of Leicester
241 publications, 1.29%
|
|
Columbia University
240 publications, 1.28%
|
|
Pennsylvania State University
239 publications, 1.28%
|
|
Lomonosov Moscow State University
236 publications, 1.26%
|
|
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
234 publications, 1.25%
|
|
Astronomical Observatory of Rome
231 publications, 1.24%
|
|
University of Victoria
231 publications, 1.24%
|
|
University of Wisconsin–Madison
229 publications, 1.23%
|
|
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
227 publications, 1.21%
|
|
Yale University
223 publications, 1.19%
|
|
Brera Astronomical Observatory
222 publications, 1.19%
|
|
University of Science and Technology of China
222 publications, 1.19%
|
|
Institute for Radio Astronomy of Bologna
221 publications, 1.18%
|
|
Grenoble Alpes University
220 publications, 1.18%
|
|
Barcelona Institute for Science and Technology
220 publications, 1.18%
|
|
Carnegie Mellon University
212 publications, 1.13%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
|
Publishing countries
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
|
|
USA
|
USA, 26014, 29.18%
USA
26014 publications, 29.18%
|
United Kingdom
|
United Kingdom, 24335, 27.3%
United Kingdom
24335 publications, 27.3%
|
Germany
|
Germany, 11854, 13.3%
Germany
11854 publications, 13.3%
|
Italy
|
Italy, 8731, 9.79%
Italy
8731 publications, 9.79%
|
Australia
|
Australia, 8211, 9.21%
Australia
8211 publications, 9.21%
|
France
|
France, 7237, 8.12%
France
7237 publications, 8.12%
|
Spain
|
Spain, 6496, 7.29%
Spain
6496 publications, 7.29%
|
China
|
China, 6002, 6.73%
China
6002 publications, 6.73%
|
Netherlands
|
Netherlands, 5371, 6.03%
Netherlands
5371 publications, 6.03%
|
Canada
|
Canada, 5322, 5.97%
Canada
5322 publications, 5.97%
|
Japan
|
Japan, 3836, 4.3%
Japan
3836 publications, 4.3%
|
Chile
|
Chile, 3782, 4.24%
Chile
3782 publications, 4.24%
|
India
|
India, 3741, 4.2%
India
3741 publications, 4.2%
|
South Africa
|
South Africa, 2828, 3.17%
South Africa
2828 publications, 3.17%
|
Switzerland
|
Switzerland, 2590, 2.91%
Switzerland
2590 publications, 2.91%
|
Russia
|
Russia, 2587, 2.9%
Russia
2587 publications, 2.9%
|
Brazil
|
Brazil, 2285, 2.56%
Brazil
2285 publications, 2.56%
|
Poland
|
Poland, 2000, 2.24%
Poland
2000 publications, 2.24%
|
Israel
|
Israel, 1890, 2.12%
Israel
1890 publications, 2.12%
|
Mexico
|
Mexico, 1873, 2.1%
Mexico
1873 publications, 2.1%
|
Sweden
|
Sweden, 1742, 1.95%
Sweden
1742 publications, 1.95%
|
Denmark
|
Denmark, 1624, 1.82%
Denmark
1624 publications, 1.82%
|
Belgium
|
Belgium, 1562, 1.75%
Belgium
1562 publications, 1.75%
|
Argentina
|
Argentina, 1127, 1.26%
Argentina
1127 publications, 1.26%
|
Republic of Korea
|
Republic of Korea, 1125, 1.26%
Republic of Korea
1125 publications, 1.26%
|
Finland
|
Finland, 976, 1.09%
Finland
976 publications, 1.09%
|
Austria
|
Austria, 809, 0.91%
Austria
809 publications, 0.91%
|
Greece
|
Greece, 792, 0.89%
Greece
792 publications, 0.89%
|
Portugal
|
Portugal, 699, 0.78%
Portugal
699 publications, 0.78%
|
Hungary
|
Hungary, 634, 0.71%
Hungary
634 publications, 0.71%
|
Ireland
|
Ireland, 628, 0.7%
Ireland
628 publications, 0.7%
|
Czech Republic
|
Czech Republic, 583, 0.65%
Czech Republic
583 publications, 0.65%
|
Turkey
|
Turkey, 550, 0.62%
Turkey
550 publications, 0.62%
|
New Zealand
|
New Zealand, 503, 0.56%
New Zealand
503 publications, 0.56%
|
Ukraine
|
Ukraine, 440, 0.49%
Ukraine
440 publications, 0.49%
|
Iran
|
Iran, 352, 0.39%
Iran
352 publications, 0.39%
|
Norway
|
Norway, 297, 0.33%
Norway
297 publications, 0.33%
|
UAE
|
UAE, 296, 0.33%
UAE
296 publications, 0.33%
|
Bulgaria
|
Bulgaria, 211, 0.24%
Bulgaria
211 publications, 0.24%
|
Serbia
|
Serbia, 183, 0.21%
Serbia
183 publications, 0.21%
|
Thailand
|
Thailand, 181, 0.2%
Thailand
181 publications, 0.2%
|
Slovakia
|
Slovakia, 175, 0.2%
Slovakia
175 publications, 0.2%
|
Slovenia
|
Slovenia, 155, 0.17%
Slovenia
155 publications, 0.17%
|
Estonia
|
Estonia, 137, 0.15%
Estonia
137 publications, 0.15%
|
Georgia
|
Georgia, 132, 0.15%
Georgia
132 publications, 0.15%
|
Colombia
|
Colombia, 121, 0.14%
Colombia
121 publications, 0.14%
|
Saudi Arabia
|
Saudi Arabia, 110, 0.12%
Saudi Arabia
110 publications, 0.12%
|
Croatia
|
Croatia, 109, 0.12%
Croatia
109 publications, 0.12%
|
Iceland
|
Iceland, 103, 0.12%
Iceland
103 publications, 0.12%
|
Romania
|
Romania, 91, 0.1%
Romania
91 publications, 0.1%
|
USSR
|
USSR, 88, 0.1%
USSR
88 publications, 0.1%
|
Armenia
|
Armenia, 84, 0.09%
Armenia
84 publications, 0.09%
|
Kazakhstan
|
Kazakhstan, 78, 0.09%
Kazakhstan
78 publications, 0.09%
|
Lithuania
|
Lithuania, 71, 0.08%
Lithuania
71 publications, 0.08%
|
Venezuela
|
Venezuela, 67, 0.08%
Venezuela
67 publications, 0.08%
|
Egypt
|
Egypt, 65, 0.07%
Egypt
65 publications, 0.07%
|
Cyprus
|
Cyprus, 59, 0.07%
Cyprus
59 publications, 0.07%
|
Tunisia
|
Tunisia, 55, 0.06%
Tunisia
55 publications, 0.06%
|
Malta
|
Malta, 54, 0.06%
Malta
54 publications, 0.06%
|
Uzbekistan
|
Uzbekistan, 54, 0.06%
Uzbekistan
54 publications, 0.06%
|
Iraq
|
Iraq, 49, 0.05%
Iraq
49 publications, 0.05%
|
Pakistan
|
Pakistan, 42, 0.05%
Pakistan
42 publications, 0.05%
|
Nigeria
|
Nigeria, 40, 0.04%
Nigeria
40 publications, 0.04%
|
Morocco
|
Morocco, 32, 0.04%
Morocco
32 publications, 0.04%
|
Vietnam
|
Vietnam, 31, 0.03%
Vietnam
31 publications, 0.03%
|
Latvia
|
Latvia, 30, 0.03%
Latvia
30 publications, 0.03%
|
Costa Rica
|
Costa Rica, 27, 0.03%
Costa Rica
27 publications, 0.03%
|
Lebanon
|
Lebanon, 27, 0.03%
Lebanon
27 publications, 0.03%
|
Burkina Faso
|
Burkina Faso, 25, 0.03%
Burkina Faso
25 publications, 0.03%
|
Qatar
|
Qatar, 25, 0.03%
Qatar
25 publications, 0.03%
|
Malaysia
|
Malaysia, 24, 0.03%
Malaysia
24 publications, 0.03%
|
Ecuador
|
Ecuador, 24, 0.03%
Ecuador
24 publications, 0.03%
|
Indonesia
|
Indonesia, 23, 0.03%
Indonesia
23 publications, 0.03%
|
Singapore
|
Singapore, 23, 0.03%
Singapore
23 publications, 0.03%
|
Uganda
|
Uganda, 20, 0.02%
Uganda
20 publications, 0.02%
|
Uruguay
|
Uruguay, 19, 0.02%
Uruguay
19 publications, 0.02%
|
Algeria
|
Algeria, 16, 0.02%
Algeria
16 publications, 0.02%
|
Puerto Rico
|
Puerto Rico, 16, 0.02%
Puerto Rico
16 publications, 0.02%
|
Ethiopia
|
Ethiopia, 16, 0.02%
Ethiopia
16 publications, 0.02%
|
Azerbaijan
|
Azerbaijan, 13, 0.01%
Azerbaijan
13 publications, 0.01%
|
Botswana
|
Botswana, 12, 0.01%
Botswana
12 publications, 0.01%
|
Czechoslovakia
|
Czechoslovakia, 12, 0.01%
Czechoslovakia
12 publications, 0.01%
|
Namibia
|
Namibia, 11, 0.01%
Namibia
11 publications, 0.01%
|
Madagascar
|
Madagascar, 10, 0.01%
Madagascar
10 publications, 0.01%
|
Philippines
|
Philippines, 10, 0.01%
Philippines
10 publications, 0.01%
|
Vatican
|
Vatican, 9, 0.01%
Vatican
9 publications, 0.01%
|
Kenya
|
Kenya, 9, 0.01%
Kenya
9 publications, 0.01%
|
Guatemala
|
Guatemala, 8, 0.01%
Guatemala
8 publications, 0.01%
|
Jordan
|
Jordan, 8, 0.01%
Jordan
8 publications, 0.01%
|
Nepal
|
Nepal, 8, 0.01%
Nepal
8 publications, 0.01%
|
Rwanda
|
Rwanda, 8, 0.01%
Rwanda
8 publications, 0.01%
|
French Polynesia
|
French Polynesia, 8, 0.01%
French Polynesia
8 publications, 0.01%
|
Bangladesh
|
Bangladesh, 7, 0.01%
Bangladesh
7 publications, 0.01%
|
Senegal
|
Senegal, 7, 0.01%
Senegal
7 publications, 0.01%
|
Tajikistan
|
Tajikistan, 7, 0.01%
Tajikistan
7 publications, 0.01%
|
Sri Lanka
|
Sri Lanka, 7, 0.01%
Sri Lanka
7 publications, 0.01%
|
Peru
|
Peru, 6, 0.01%
Peru
6 publications, 0.01%
|
North Macedonia
|
North Macedonia, 6, 0.01%
North Macedonia
6 publications, 0.01%
|
Ghana
|
Ghana, 5, 0.01%
Ghana
5 publications, 0.01%
|
Cuba
|
Cuba, 5, 0.01%
Cuba
5 publications, 0.01%
|
Show all (70 more) | |
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
|
Publishing countries in 5 years
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
|
|
USA
|
USA, 7423, 39.71%
USA
7423 publications, 39.71%
|
United Kingdom
|
United Kingdom, 5815, 31.11%
United Kingdom
5815 publications, 31.11%
|
Germany
|
Germany, 3983, 21.31%
Germany
3983 publications, 21.31%
|
China
|
China, 2876, 15.39%
China
2876 publications, 15.39%
|
Italy
|
Italy, 2696, 14.42%
Italy
2696 publications, 14.42%
|
Spain
|
Spain, 2316, 12.39%
Spain
2316 publications, 12.39%
|
France
|
France, 2312, 12.37%
France
2312 publications, 12.37%
|
Australia
|
Australia, 2240, 11.98%
Australia
2240 publications, 11.98%
|
Canada
|
Canada, 1648, 8.82%
Canada
1648 publications, 8.82%
|
Netherlands
|
Netherlands, 1598, 8.55%
Netherlands
1598 publications, 8.55%
|
India
|
India, 1488, 7.96%
India
1488 publications, 7.96%
|
Chile
|
Chile, 1398, 7.48%
Chile
1398 publications, 7.48%
|
Japan
|
Japan, 1327, 7.1%
Japan
1327 publications, 7.1%
|
Switzerland
|
Switzerland, 975, 5.22%
Switzerland
975 publications, 5.22%
|
Brazil
|
Brazil, 845, 4.52%
Brazil
845 publications, 4.52%
|
Russia
|
Russia, 829, 4.44%
Russia
829 publications, 4.44%
|
South Africa
|
South Africa, 813, 4.35%
South Africa
813 publications, 4.35%
|
Sweden
|
Sweden, 706, 3.78%
Sweden
706 publications, 3.78%
|
Mexico
|
Mexico, 629, 3.37%
Mexico
629 publications, 3.37%
|
Denmark
|
Denmark, 595, 3.18%
Denmark
595 publications, 3.18%
|
Israel
|
Israel, 583, 3.12%
Israel
583 publications, 3.12%
|
Poland
|
Poland, 566, 3.03%
Poland
566 publications, 3.03%
|
Belgium
|
Belgium, 493, 2.64%
Belgium
493 publications, 2.64%
|
Republic of Korea
|
Republic of Korea, 477, 2.55%
Republic of Korea
477 publications, 2.55%
|
Argentina
|
Argentina, 381, 2.04%
Argentina
381 publications, 2.04%
|
Finland
|
Finland, 339, 1.81%
Finland
339 publications, 1.81%
|
Czech Republic
|
Czech Republic, 273, 1.46%
Czech Republic
273 publications, 1.46%
|
Austria
|
Austria, 269, 1.44%
Austria
269 publications, 1.44%
|
Ireland
|
Ireland, 252, 1.35%
Ireland
252 publications, 1.35%
|
Hungary
|
Hungary, 251, 1.34%
Hungary
251 publications, 1.34%
|
Greece
|
Greece, 245, 1.31%
Greece
245 publications, 1.31%
|
Portugal
|
Portugal, 228, 1.22%
Portugal
228 publications, 1.22%
|
Turkey
|
Turkey, 178, 0.95%
Turkey
178 publications, 0.95%
|
Norway
|
Norway, 168, 0.9%
Norway
168 publications, 0.9%
|
UAE
|
UAE, 159, 0.85%
UAE
159 publications, 0.85%
|
Iran
|
Iran, 137, 0.73%
Iran
137 publications, 0.73%
|
New Zealand
|
New Zealand, 134, 0.72%
New Zealand
134 publications, 0.72%
|
Ukraine
|
Ukraine, 120, 0.64%
Ukraine
120 publications, 0.64%
|
Thailand
|
Thailand, 87, 0.47%
Thailand
87 publications, 0.47%
|
Bulgaria
|
Bulgaria, 62, 0.33%
Bulgaria
62 publications, 0.33%
|
Serbia
|
Serbia, 62, 0.33%
Serbia
62 publications, 0.33%
|
Slovakia
|
Slovakia, 60, 0.32%
Slovakia
60 publications, 0.32%
|
Colombia
|
Colombia, 54, 0.29%
Colombia
54 publications, 0.29%
|
Estonia
|
Estonia, 50, 0.27%
Estonia
50 publications, 0.27%
|
Kazakhstan
|
Kazakhstan, 49, 0.26%
Kazakhstan
49 publications, 0.26%
|
Slovenia
|
Slovenia, 48, 0.26%
Slovenia
48 publications, 0.26%
|
Georgia
|
Georgia, 44, 0.24%
Georgia
44 publications, 0.24%
|
Armenia
|
Armenia, 41, 0.22%
Armenia
41 publications, 0.22%
|
Croatia
|
Croatia, 38, 0.2%
Croatia
38 publications, 0.2%
|
Romania
|
Romania, 36, 0.19%
Romania
36 publications, 0.19%
|
Saudi Arabia
|
Saudi Arabia, 35, 0.19%
Saudi Arabia
35 publications, 0.19%
|
Iceland
|
Iceland, 34, 0.18%
Iceland
34 publications, 0.18%
|
Malta
|
Malta, 34, 0.18%
Malta
34 publications, 0.18%
|
Egypt
|
Egypt, 32, 0.17%
Egypt
32 publications, 0.17%
|
Cyprus
|
Cyprus, 30, 0.16%
Cyprus
30 publications, 0.16%
|
Tunisia
|
Tunisia, 28, 0.15%
Tunisia
28 publications, 0.15%
|
Uzbekistan
|
Uzbekistan, 22, 0.12%
Uzbekistan
22 publications, 0.12%
|
Lithuania
|
Lithuania, 21, 0.11%
Lithuania
21 publications, 0.11%
|
Nigeria
|
Nigeria, 20, 0.11%
Nigeria
20 publications, 0.11%
|
Morocco
|
Morocco, 17, 0.09%
Morocco
17 publications, 0.09%
|
Vietnam
|
Vietnam, 16, 0.09%
Vietnam
16 publications, 0.09%
|
Malaysia
|
Malaysia, 16, 0.09%
Malaysia
16 publications, 0.09%
|
Ecuador
|
Ecuador, 16, 0.09%
Ecuador
16 publications, 0.09%
|
Latvia
|
Latvia, 15, 0.08%
Latvia
15 publications, 0.08%
|
Costa Rica
|
Costa Rica, 14, 0.07%
Costa Rica
14 publications, 0.07%
|
Uganda
|
Uganda, 14, 0.07%
Uganda
14 publications, 0.07%
|
Pakistan
|
Pakistan, 13, 0.07%
Pakistan
13 publications, 0.07%
|
Indonesia
|
Indonesia, 12, 0.06%
Indonesia
12 publications, 0.06%
|
Lebanon
|
Lebanon, 10, 0.05%
Lebanon
10 publications, 0.05%
|
Botswana
|
Botswana, 9, 0.05%
Botswana
9 publications, 0.05%
|
Madagascar
|
Madagascar, 9, 0.05%
Madagascar
9 publications, 0.05%
|
Singapore
|
Singapore, 9, 0.05%
Singapore
9 publications, 0.05%
|
Uruguay
|
Uruguay, 9, 0.05%
Uruguay
9 publications, 0.05%
|
Ethiopia
|
Ethiopia, 9, 0.05%
Ethiopia
9 publications, 0.05%
|
Azerbaijan
|
Azerbaijan, 8, 0.04%
Azerbaijan
8 publications, 0.04%
|
Burkina Faso
|
Burkina Faso, 8, 0.04%
Burkina Faso
8 publications, 0.04%
|
Vatican
|
Vatican, 7, 0.04%
Vatican
7 publications, 0.04%
|
Kenya
|
Kenya, 7, 0.04%
Kenya
7 publications, 0.04%
|
Namibia
|
Namibia, 6, 0.03%
Namibia
6 publications, 0.03%
|
Algeria
|
Algeria, 5, 0.03%
Algeria
5 publications, 0.03%
|
Bangladesh
|
Bangladesh, 5, 0.03%
Bangladesh
5 publications, 0.03%
|
Venezuela
|
Venezuela, 5, 0.03%
Venezuela
5 publications, 0.03%
|
Jordan
|
Jordan, 5, 0.03%
Jordan
5 publications, 0.03%
|
Puerto Rico
|
Puerto Rico, 5, 0.03%
Puerto Rico
5 publications, 0.03%
|
Philippines
|
Philippines, 5, 0.03%
Philippines
5 publications, 0.03%
|
Iraq
|
Iraq, 4, 0.02%
Iraq
4 publications, 0.02%
|
Peru
|
Peru, 4, 0.02%
Peru
4 publications, 0.02%
|
Sudan
|
Sudan, 4, 0.02%
Sudan
4 publications, 0.02%
|
Tanzania
|
Tanzania, 4, 0.02%
Tanzania
4 publications, 0.02%
|
Belarus
|
Belarus, 3, 0.02%
Belarus
3 publications, 0.02%
|
Antarctica
|
Antarctica, 3, 0.02%
Antarctica
3 publications, 0.02%
|
Ghana
|
Ghana, 3, 0.02%
Ghana
3 publications, 0.02%
|
Guatemala
|
Guatemala, 3, 0.02%
Guatemala
3 publications, 0.02%
|
Nicaragua
|
Nicaragua, 3, 0.02%
Nicaragua
3 publications, 0.02%
|
Oman
|
Oman, 3, 0.02%
Oman
3 publications, 0.02%
|
Rwanda
|
Rwanda, 3, 0.02%
Rwanda
3 publications, 0.02%
|
North Macedonia
|
North Macedonia, 3, 0.02%
North Macedonia
3 publications, 0.02%
|
French Polynesia
|
French Polynesia, 3, 0.02%
French Polynesia
3 publications, 0.02%
|
Sri Lanka
|
Sri Lanka, 3, 0.02%
Sri Lanka
3 publications, 0.02%
|
Bahamas
|
Bahamas, 2, 0.01%
Bahamas
2 publications, 0.01%
|
Show all (70 more) | |
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
|
54 profile journal articles
Trujillo Ignacio
173 publications,
9 727 citations
h-index: 55
24 profile journal articles
Grankin Konstantin
DSc in Physics and Mathematics

Crimean Astrophysical Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences
93 publications,
2 784 citations
h-index: 28
Research interests
Astrophysics
18 profile journal articles
Alexashov Dmitry
PhD in Physics and Mathematics

Ishlinsky Institute for Problems in Mechanics of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Space Research Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences
57 publications,
1 585 citations
h-index: 21
11 profile journal articles
Lyubimkov Leonid
DSc in Physics and Mathematics

Crimean Astrophysical Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences
80 publications,
1 432 citations
h-index: 20
10 profile journal articles
Dodonov Serguei
PhD in Physics and Mathematics

Special Astrophysical Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences
61 publications,
729 citations
h-index: 13
9 profile journal articles
Lupu Roxana

Eureka Scientific
76 publications,
5 002 citations
h-index: 41
8 profile journal articles
Ruderman Michael
DSc in Physics and Mathematics

Space Research Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences
182 publications,
4 741 citations
h-index: 34
8 profile journal articles
Meštrić Uros
23 publications,
637 citations
h-index: 12
8 profile journal articles
Lacerda Pedro
🤝 🥼
PhD in Physics and Mathematics, Lecturer

University of Coimbra
69 publications,
2 876 citations
h-index: 32
Research interests
Astronomy
Astrophysics
Space exploration
Space physics
Space research
6 profile journal articles
Abunina Maria

Pushkov Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation of Russian Academy of Sciences
99 publications,
915 citations
h-index: 15
6 profile journal articles
Galván Antonio
42 publications,
562 citations
h-index: 11
6 profile journal articles
Fernandes João
52 publications,
825 citations
h-index: 15
6 profile journal articles
Marongiu Michele
93 publications,
9 449 citations
h-index: 27