Are you a researcher?
Create a profile to get free access to personal recommendations for colleagues and new articles.
SCImago
Q2
WOS
Q2
Impact factor
2.3
SJR
0.558
CiteScore
4.3
Categories
Computational Mechanics
Mechanical Engineering
Areas
Engineering
Years of issue
1965-2025
journal names
Acta Mechanica
ACTA MECH
Top-3 citing journals

Acta Mechanica
(8969 citations)

International Journal of Solids and Structures
(2529 citations)

Composite Structures
(2077 citations)
Top-3 organizations

Vienna University of Technology
(149 publications)

National Technical University of Athens
(112 publications)

University of Alberta
(111 publications)

Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics
(49 publications)

Xi'an Jiaotong University
(37 publications)

University of Alberta
(25 publications)
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
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
|
|
Acta Mechanica
8969 citations, 8.29%
|
|
International Journal of Solids and Structures
2529 citations, 2.34%
|
|
Composite Structures
2077 citations, 1.92%
|
|
International Journal of Engineering Science
1443 citations, 1.33%
|
|
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences
1377 citations, 1.27%
|
|
Archive of Applied Mechanics
1219 citations, 1.13%
|
|
International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics
1168 citations, 1.08%
|
|
Applied Mathematical Modelling
1157 citations, 1.07%
|
|
Physics of Fluids
1133 citations, 1.05%
|
|
Mechanics of Advanced Materials and Structures
1122 citations, 1.04%
|
|
European Journal of Mechanics, A/Solids
1122 citations, 1.04%
|
|
Thin-Walled Structures
1085 citations, 1%
|
|
ZAMM Zeitschrift fur Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik
1011 citations, 0.93%
|
|
International Journal of Plasticity
984 citations, 0.91%
|
|
Journal of Thermal Stresses
970 citations, 0.9%
|
|
Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering
876 citations, 0.81%
|
|
Mathematics and Mechanics of Solids
858 citations, 0.79%
|
|
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer
817 citations, 0.76%
|
|
Journal of Sound and Vibration
803 citations, 0.74%
|
|
Meccanica
786 citations, 0.73%
|
|
Mechanics of Materials
715 citations, 0.66%
|
|
Waves in Random and Complex Media
680 citations, 0.63%
|
|
Journal of Fluid Mechanics
677 citations, 0.63%
|
|
Nonlinear Dynamics
664 citations, 0.61%
|
|
Engineering Fracture Mechanics
640 citations, 0.59%
|
|
Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids
622 citations, 0.57%
|
|
Continuum Mechanics and Thermodynamics
620 citations, 0.57%
|
|
Mechanics Based Design of Structures and Machines
568 citations, 0.52%
|
|
Applied Mathematics and Mechanics (English Edition)
563 citations, 0.52%
|
|
Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements
562 citations, 0.52%
|
|
Mechanics Research Communications
556 citations, 0.51%
|
|
Composites Part B: Engineering
548 citations, 0.51%
|
|
Computers and Structures
543 citations, 0.5%
|
|
Advanced Structured Materials
508 citations, 0.47%
|
|
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering
498 citations, 0.46%
|
|
Journal of Applied Mechanics, Transactions ASME
495 citations, 0.46%
|
|
Engineering Structures
488 citations, 0.45%
|
|
Journal of Engineering Mechanics - ASCE
461 citations, 0.43%
|
|
Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation
456 citations, 0.42%
|
|
Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences
454 citations, 0.42%
|
|
European Physical Journal Plus
449 citations, 0.41%
|
|
International Journal of Applied Mechanics
438 citations, 0.4%
|
|
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering
437 citations, 0.4%
|
|
Zeitschrift fur Angewandte Mathematik und Physik
425 citations, 0.39%
|
|
Applied Mathematics and Computation
424 citations, 0.39%
|
|
JVC/Journal of Vibration and Control
400 citations, 0.37%
|
|
Materials
384 citations, 0.35%
|
|
Smart Materials and Structures
373 citations, 0.34%
|
|
Applied Sciences (Switzerland)
355 citations, 0.33%
|
|
Physical Review E
341 citations, 0.32%
|
|
Journal of Elasticity
337 citations, 0.31%
|
|
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science
336 citations, 0.31%
|
|
Structures
332 citations, 0.31%
|
|
Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing
327 citations, 0.3%
|
|
International Journal of Structural Stability and Dynamics
326 citations, 0.3%
|
|
Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics
323 citations, 0.3%
|
|
Mathematical Problems in Engineering
317 citations, 0.29%
|
|
AIAA Journal
316 citations, 0.29%
|
|
AIP Conference Proceedings
314 citations, 0.29%
|
|
International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics
306 citations, 0.28%
|
|
International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer
305 citations, 0.28%
|
|
Aerospace Science and Technology
302 citations, 0.28%
|
|
Acta Mechanica Sinica/Lixue Xuebao
297 citations, 0.27%
|
|
Journal of Physics: Conference Series
295 citations, 0.27%
|
|
Journal of Vibrational Engineering and Technologies
294 citations, 0.27%
|
|
Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures
292 citations, 0.27%
|
|
Computers and Geotechnics
288 citations, 0.27%
|
|
Ocean Engineering
280 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Mathematics
275 citations, 0.25%
|
|
Computational Mechanics
269 citations, 0.25%
|
|
Engineering with Computers
268 citations, 0.25%
|
|
International Journal of Damage Mechanics
265 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Computers and Mathematics with Applications
258 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Journal of Applied Physics
256 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering
253 citations, 0.23%
|
|
Acta Mechanica Solida Sinica
252 citations, 0.23%
|
|
Powder Technology
250 citations, 0.23%
|
|
Computational Materials Science
249 citations, 0.23%
|
|
International Journal of Numerical Methods for Heat and Fluid Flow
246 citations, 0.23%
|
|
Transport in Porous Media
244 citations, 0.23%
|
|
Journal of Engineering Mathematics
235 citations, 0.22%
|
|
International Journal of Fracture
235 citations, 0.22%
|
|
International Journal of Thermal Sciences
234 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Mechanics of Solids
233 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Scientific Reports
222 citations, 0.21%
|
|
AEJ - Alexandria Engineering Journal
220 citations, 0.2%
|
|
European Journal of Mechanics, B/Fluids
214 citations, 0.2%
|
|
International Journal of Multiphase Flow
203 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Results in Physics
197 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Journal of Mechanics of Materials and Structures
192 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Symmetry
192 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Wave Motion
190 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering
189 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Mathematical Methods in the Applied Sciences
189 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering
188 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Physica Scripta
185 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Journal of Non-Newtonian Fluid Mechanics
184 citations, 0.17%
|
|
International Journal of Mechanics and Materials in Design
179 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Multidiscipline Modeling in Materials and Structures
177 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Physical Review Fluids
176 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
|
Citing publishers
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
|
|
Elsevier
36877 citations, 34.08%
|
|
Springer Nature
27306 citations, 25.23%
|
|
Taylor & Francis
5443 citations, 5.03%
|
|
Wiley
4499 citations, 4.16%
|
|
SAGE
3613 citations, 3.34%
|
|
MDPI
2920 citations, 2.7%
|
|
AIP Publishing
2214 citations, 2.05%
|
|
IOP Publishing
2156 citations, 1.99%
|
|
ASME International
1533 citations, 1.42%
|
|
World Scientific
1503 citations, 1.39%
|
|
Hindawi Limited
1159 citations, 1.07%
|
|
Cambridge University Press
1116 citations, 1.03%
|
|
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
1067 citations, 0.99%
|
|
Pleiades Publishing
887 citations, 0.82%
|
|
Walter de Gruyter
792 citations, 0.73%
|
|
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
790 citations, 0.73%
|
|
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)
776 citations, 0.72%
|
|
Emerald
731 citations, 0.68%
|
|
American Physical Society (APS)
690 citations, 0.64%
|
|
The Royal Society
614 citations, 0.57%
|
|
Trans Tech Publications
499 citations, 0.46%
|
|
Mathematical Sciences Publishers
263 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Canadian Science Publishing
219 citations, 0.2%
|
|
EDP Sciences
216 citations, 0.2%
|
|
American Chemical Society (ACS)
214 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Oxford University Press
205 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Alexandria University
204 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Frontiers Media S.A.
197 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Korean Society of Mechanical Engineers
194 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)
177 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Techno-Press
162 citations, 0.15%
|
|
American Institute of Mathematical Sciences (AIMS)
153 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM)
139 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Argentinean Association of Computational Mechanics
130 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Thomas Telford
124 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Ain Shams University
107 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Scientific Research Publishing
101 citations, 0.09%
|
|
97 citations, 0.09%
|
|
95 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Acoustical Society of America (ASA)
93 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Science in China Press
90 citations, 0.08%
|
|
American Geophysical Union
89 citations, 0.08%
|
|
Begell House
78 citations, 0.07%
|
|
Acta Physica Sinica, Chinese Physical Society and Institute of Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences
74 citations, 0.07%
|
|
Japanese Geotechnical Society
71 citations, 0.07%
|
|
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
70 citations, 0.06%
|
|
American Mathematical Society
67 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Copernicus
60 citations, 0.06%
|
|
National Library of Serbia
56 citations, 0.05%
|
|
American Scientific Publishers
55 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Japan Society of Civil Engineers
54 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Tech Science Press
50 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers
49 citations, 0.05%
|
|
SAE International
48 citations, 0.04%
|
|
IOS Press
47 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Research Square Platform LLC
47 citations, 0.04%
|
|
King Saud University
43 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Annual Reviews
41 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Institute of Continuous Media Mechanics
41 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Publishing House for Science and Technology, Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology (Publications)
39 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Allerton Press
38 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET)
34 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers
34 citations, 0.03%
|
|
SPIE-Intl Soc Optical Eng
34 citations, 0.03%
|
|
IGI Global
32 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Society of Rheology
31 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Society of Petroleum Engineers
30 citations, 0.03%
|
|
The Russian Academy of Sciences
30 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Physical Society of Japan
30 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Zhejiang University Press
27 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Samara State Technical University
27 citations, 0.02%
|
|
IntechOpen
27 citations, 0.02%
|
|
ASTM International
24 citations, 0.02%
|
|
23 citations, 0.02%
|
|
The Electrochemical Society
22 citations, 0.02%
|
|
IWA Publishing
21 citations, 0.02%
|
|
The Korean Society for Aeronautical & Space Sciences
21 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Lviv Polytechnic National University
21 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Society of Exploration Geophysicists
20 citations, 0.02%
|
|
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
19 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Japan Society of Applied Physics
19 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Hans Publishers
19 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.
18 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Korean Society of Steel Construction
18 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Optica Publishing Group
17 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Science Alert
17 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Social Science Electronic Publishing
17 citations, 0.02%
|
|
The Company of Biologists
15 citations, 0.01%
|
|
National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (Co. LTD Ukrinformnauka) (Publications)
15 citations, 0.01%
|
|
JVE International Ltd.
15 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Steklov Mathematical Institute
15 citations, 0.01%
|
|
World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society (WSEAS)
15 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)
14 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Tsinghua University Press
14 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Chinese Academy of Sciences
14 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Korean Society Rheology
14 citations, 0.01%
|
|
The Korean Fiber Society
13 citations, 0.01%
|
|
ASM International
12 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Japan Institute of Metals
12 citations, 0.01%
|
|
The Korean Society of Precision Engineering
12 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
|
Publishing organizations
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
|
|
Vienna University of Technology
149 publications, 1.86%
|
|
National Technical University of Athens
112 publications, 1.4%
|
|
University of Alberta
111 publications, 1.39%
|
|
Xi'an Jiaotong University
110 publications, 1.37%
|
|
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
102 publications, 1.27%
|
|
Indian Institute of Science
89 publications, 1.11%
|
|
Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics
86 publications, 1.07%
|
|
Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur
77 publications, 0.96%
|
|
Sharif University of Technology
73 publications, 0.91%
|
|
Iran University of Science and Technology
67 publications, 0.84%
|
|
Nanyang Technological University
62 publications, 0.77%
|
|
Texas A&M University
59 publications, 0.74%
|
|
Indian Institute of Technology Madras
55 publications, 0.69%
|
|
National Cheng Kung University
53 publications, 0.66%
|
|
Hunan University
53 publications, 0.66%
|
|
Johannes Kepler University of Linz
53 publications, 0.66%
|
|
University of Tehran
51 publications, 0.64%
|
|
Institute of Fundamental Technological Research of the Polish Academy of Sciences
51 publications, 0.64%
|
|
Beijing Institute of Technology
49 publications, 0.61%
|
|
Technion – Israel Institute of Technology
49 publications, 0.61%
|
|
Zhejiang University
48 publications, 0.6%
|
|
Harbin Institute of Technology
47 publications, 0.59%
|
|
Amirkabir University of Technology
46 publications, 0.57%
|
|
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
46 publications, 0.57%
|
|
University of California, Berkeley
46 publications, 0.57%
|
|
Tsinghua University
45 publications, 0.56%
|
|
Jiangsu University
45 publications, 0.56%
|
|
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
45 publications, 0.56%
|
|
Tohoku University
43 publications, 0.54%
|
|
Tongji University
42 publications, 0.52%
|
|
Dalian University of Technology
42 publications, 0.52%
|
|
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
42 publications, 0.52%
|
|
Ruhr University Bochum
42 publications, 0.52%
|
|
RWTH Aachen University
42 publications, 0.52%
|
|
Virginia Tech
41 publications, 0.51%
|
|
Beihang University
39 publications, 0.49%
|
|
University of Central Florida
39 publications, 0.49%
|
|
Sandia National Laboratories
39 publications, 0.49%
|
|
Peking University
38 publications, 0.47%
|
|
ETH Zurich
38 publications, 0.47%
|
|
University of Naples Federico II
38 publications, 0.47%
|
|
Institute of Problems of Mechanical Engineering of the Russian Academy of Sciences
37 publications, 0.46%
|
|
Shanghai Jiao Tong University
37 publications, 0.46%
|
|
University of Patras
37 publications, 0.46%
|
|
Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines) Dhanbad
36 publications, 0.45%
|
|
Bangalore University
35 publications, 0.44%
|
|
East China University of Science and Technology
35 publications, 0.44%
|
|
University of Kentucky
35 publications, 0.44%
|
|
Indian Institute of Technology Bombay
34 publications, 0.42%
|
|
University of California, San Diego
34 publications, 0.42%
|
|
University of Calgary
34 publications, 0.42%
|
|
Shanghai University
33 publications, 0.41%
|
|
University of Waterloo
33 publications, 0.41%
|
|
University of Stuttgart
32 publications, 0.4%
|
|
Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University
31 publications, 0.39%
|
|
Michigan State University
31 publications, 0.39%
|
|
University of Toronto
31 publications, 0.39%
|
|
National Taiwan University
30 publications, 0.37%
|
|
University of Nebraska–Lincoln
30 publications, 0.37%
|
|
Ishlinsky Institute for Problems in Mechanics of the Russian Academy of Sciences
28 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Yale University
28 publications, 0.35%
|
|
University of Michigan
28 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Islamic Azad University, Tehran
27 publications, 0.34%
|
|
Beijing Jiaotong University
27 publications, 0.34%
|
|
University of Leeds
27 publications, 0.34%
|
|
University of Delaware
27 publications, 0.34%
|
|
Southeast University
26 publications, 0.32%
|
|
Cornell University
26 publications, 0.32%
|
|
Democritus University of Thrace
26 publications, 0.32%
|
|
Michigan Technological University
26 publications, 0.32%
|
|
Zagazig University
26 publications, 0.32%
|
|
Istanbul Technical University
25 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Isfahan University of Technology
25 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Tel Aviv University
25 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Harbin Engineering University
25 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Central South University
25 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Beijing University of Technology
25 publications, 0.31%
|
|
University of Manchester
25 publications, 0.31%
|
|
University of California, Los Angeles
25 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Sapienza University of Rome
24 publications, 0.3%
|
|
Chongqing University
24 publications, 0.3%
|
|
Northwestern University
24 publications, 0.3%
|
|
King Abdulaziz University
23 publications, 0.29%
|
|
Shiraz University
23 publications, 0.29%
|
|
Ferdowsi University of Mashhad
23 publications, 0.29%
|
|
University of Science and Technology Beijing
23 publications, 0.29%
|
|
University of Nottingham
23 publications, 0.29%
|
|
Technical University of Berlin
23 publications, 0.29%
|
|
Darmstadt University of Applied Sciences
23 publications, 0.29%
|
|
Louisiana State University
23 publications, 0.29%
|
|
Middle East Technical University
22 publications, 0.27%
|
|
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi
22 publications, 0.27%
|
|
University of Guilan
22 publications, 0.27%
|
|
Northwestern Polytechnical University
22 publications, 0.27%
|
|
China Agricultural University
22 publications, 0.27%
|
|
Polytechnic University of Turin
22 publications, 0.27%
|
|
Technical University of Braunschweig
22 publications, 0.27%
|
|
Alexandria University
22 publications, 0.27%
|
|
University of Colorado Boulder
22 publications, 0.27%
|
|
Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur
21 publications, 0.26%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
|
Publishing organizations in 5 years
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
|
|
Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics
49 publications, 3.02%
|
|
Xi'an Jiaotong University
37 publications, 2.28%
|
|
University of Alberta
25 publications, 1.54%
|
|
University of Tehran
24 publications, 1.48%
|
|
Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines) Dhanbad
20 publications, 1.23%
|
|
Beijing Institute of Technology
17 publications, 1.05%
|
|
Harbin Institute of Technology
17 publications, 1.05%
|
|
Southeast University
17 publications, 1.05%
|
|
Chongqing University
17 publications, 1.05%
|
|
Sharif University of Technology
16 publications, 0.99%
|
|
Zagazig University
16 publications, 0.99%
|
|
Northwestern Polytechnical University
15 publications, 0.93%
|
|
Harbin Engineering University
15 publications, 0.93%
|
|
Imam Khomeini International University
14 publications, 0.86%
|
|
East China University of Science and Technology
14 publications, 0.86%
|
|
Institute of Problems of Mechanical Engineering of the Russian Academy of Sciences
13 publications, 0.8%
|
|
Indian Institute of Technology Madras
13 publications, 0.8%
|
|
University of Guilan
13 publications, 0.8%
|
|
Tongji University
13 publications, 0.8%
|
|
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
13 publications, 0.8%
|
|
Polytechnic University of Turin
13 publications, 0.8%
|
|
Vienna University of Technology
13 publications, 0.8%
|
|
King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals
12 publications, 0.74%
|
|
University of Naples Federico II
12 publications, 0.74%
|
|
Tianjin University
12 publications, 0.74%
|
|
Hunan University
12 publications, 0.74%
|
|
Lanzhou University of Technology
12 publications, 0.74%
|
|
Amirkabir University of Technology
11 publications, 0.68%
|
|
Zhejiang University
11 publications, 0.68%
|
|
South China University of Technology
11 publications, 0.68%
|
|
Johannes Kepler University of Linz
11 publications, 0.68%
|
|
Iran University of Science and Technology
10 publications, 0.62%
|
|
Shiraz University
10 publications, 0.62%
|
|
National Institute of Technology Rourkela
10 publications, 0.62%
|
|
Khajeh Nasir Toosi University of Technology
10 publications, 0.62%
|
|
Shahrekord University
10 publications, 0.62%
|
|
Hohai University
10 publications, 0.62%
|
|
Southwest Jiaotong University
10 publications, 0.62%
|
|
Southern Methodist University
10 publications, 0.62%
|
|
Texas A&M University
10 publications, 0.62%
|
|
King Abdulaziz University
9 publications, 0.56%
|
|
Hanoi University
9 publications, 0.56%
|
|
Tsinghua University
9 publications, 0.56%
|
|
Dalian University of Technology
9 publications, 0.56%
|
|
Central South University
9 publications, 0.56%
|
|
Northeastern University
9 publications, 0.56%
|
|
Shijiazhuang Tiedao University
9 publications, 0.56%
|
|
University of Science and Technology Beijing
9 publications, 0.56%
|
|
Nanyang Technological University
9 publications, 0.56%
|
|
Xi'an University of Architecture and Technology
9 publications, 0.56%
|
|
Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University
8 publications, 0.49%
|
|
Saint Petersburg State University
8 publications, 0.49%
|
|
Isfahan University of Technology
8 publications, 0.49%
|
|
Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz
8 publications, 0.49%
|
|
Ton Duc Thang University
8 publications, 0.49%
|
|
Vietnam National University, Hanoi
8 publications, 0.49%
|
|
Nanjing University of Science and Technology
8 publications, 0.49%
|
|
Beijing Jiaotong University
8 publications, 0.49%
|
|
Beijing University of Technology
8 publications, 0.49%
|
|
Jiangsu University
8 publications, 0.49%
|
|
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
8 publications, 0.49%
|
|
RWTH Aachen University
8 publications, 0.49%
|
|
University of Innsbruck
8 publications, 0.49%
|
|
Lodz University of Technology
8 publications, 0.49%
|
|
Ishlinsky Institute for Problems in Mechanics of the Russian Academy of Sciences
7 publications, 0.43%
|
|
Institute of Continuous Media Mechanics of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
7 publications, 0.43%
|
|
Al Jouf University
7 publications, 0.43%
|
|
Indian Institute of Science
7 publications, 0.43%
|
|
Ferdowsi University of Mashhad
7 publications, 0.43%
|
|
Indian Institute of Technology Indore
7 publications, 0.43%
|
|
Banaras Hindu University
7 publications, 0.43%
|
|
Islamic Azad University, Tehran
7 publications, 0.43%
|
|
Shanghai Jiao Tong University
7 publications, 0.43%
|
|
Technion – Israel Institute of Technology
7 publications, 0.43%
|
|
Karabuk University
7 publications, 0.43%
|
|
Suzhou University of Science and Technology
7 publications, 0.43%
|
|
Henan Polytechnic University
7 publications, 0.43%
|
|
Ningxia University
7 publications, 0.43%
|
|
University Djillali Liabès of Sidi Bel Abbès
7 publications, 0.43%
|
|
Université Mustapha Stambouli de Mascara
7 publications, 0.43%
|
|
Lomonosov Moscow State University
6 publications, 0.37%
|
|
Jazan University
6 publications, 0.37%
|
|
Indian Institute of Technology Bombay
6 publications, 0.37%
|
|
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi
6 publications, 0.37%
|
|
Urmia University
6 publications, 0.37%
|
|
Suleyman Demirel University
6 publications, 0.37%
|
|
Duy Tan University
6 publications, 0.37%
|
|
China University of Mining and Technology
6 publications, 0.37%
|
|
Yanshan University
6 publications, 0.37%
|
|
University of New South Wales
6 publications, 0.37%
|
|
Delft University of Technology
6 publications, 0.37%
|
|
Lebanese American University
6 publications, 0.37%
|
|
Changzhou Institute of Technology
6 publications, 0.37%
|
|
Hefei University of Technology
6 publications, 0.37%
|
|
Tokyo Institute of Technology
6 publications, 0.37%
|
|
Ningbo University
6 publications, 0.37%
|
|
Changsha University of Science and Technology
6 publications, 0.37%
|
|
Budapest University of Technology and Economics
6 publications, 0.37%
|
|
Guangxi University
6 publications, 0.37%
|
|
University of Toronto
6 publications, 0.37%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
|
Publishing countries
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
|
|
China
|
China, 1584, 19.8%
China
1584 publications, 19.8%
|
USA
|
USA, 1445, 18.06%
USA
1445 publications, 18.06%
|
India
|
India, 706, 8.82%
India
706 publications, 8.82%
|
Germany
|
Germany, 675, 8.44%
Germany
675 publications, 8.44%
|
Iran
|
Iran, 515, 6.44%
Iran
515 publications, 6.44%
|
Canada
|
Canada, 339, 4.24%
Canada
339 publications, 4.24%
|
United Kingdom
|
United Kingdom, 322, 4.02%
United Kingdom
322 publications, 4.02%
|
Austria
|
Austria, 293, 3.66%
Austria
293 publications, 3.66%
|
Italy
|
Italy, 278, 3.47%
Italy
278 publications, 3.47%
|
Greece
|
Greece, 275, 3.44%
Greece
275 publications, 3.44%
|
Japan
|
Japan, 236, 2.95%
Japan
236 publications, 2.95%
|
Russia
|
Russia, 235, 2.94%
Russia
235 publications, 2.94%
|
Poland
|
Poland, 208, 2.6%
Poland
208 publications, 2.6%
|
France
|
France, 189, 2.36%
France
189 publications, 2.36%
|
Turkey
|
Turkey, 146, 1.82%
Turkey
146 publications, 1.82%
|
Egypt
|
Egypt, 129, 1.61%
Egypt
129 publications, 1.61%
|
Australia
|
Australia, 116, 1.45%
Australia
116 publications, 1.45%
|
Romania
|
Romania, 108, 1.35%
Romania
108 publications, 1.35%
|
Republic of Korea
|
Republic of Korea, 100, 1.25%
Republic of Korea
100 publications, 1.25%
|
Saudi Arabia
|
Saudi Arabia, 91, 1.14%
Saudi Arabia
91 publications, 1.14%
|
Israel
|
Israel, 88, 1.1%
Israel
88 publications, 1.1%
|
Singapore
|
Singapore, 87, 1.09%
Singapore
87 publications, 1.09%
|
Vietnam
|
Vietnam, 79, 0.99%
Vietnam
79 publications, 0.99%
|
Serbia
|
Serbia, 71, 0.89%
Serbia
71 publications, 0.89%
|
Ukraine
|
Ukraine, 68, 0.85%
Ukraine
68 publications, 0.85%
|
Switzerland
|
Switzerland, 60, 0.75%
Switzerland
60 publications, 0.75%
|
Brazil
|
Brazil, 59, 0.74%
Brazil
59 publications, 0.74%
|
Netherlands
|
Netherlands, 48, 0.6%
Netherlands
48 publications, 0.6%
|
Algeria
|
Algeria, 44, 0.55%
Algeria
44 publications, 0.55%
|
Spain
|
Spain, 44, 0.55%
Spain
44 publications, 0.55%
|
Yugoslavia
|
Yugoslavia, 40, 0.5%
Yugoslavia
40 publications, 0.5%
|
Hungary
|
Hungary, 39, 0.49%
Hungary
39 publications, 0.49%
|
Pakistan
|
Pakistan, 35, 0.44%
Pakistan
35 publications, 0.44%
|
Norway
|
Norway, 30, 0.37%
Norway
30 publications, 0.37%
|
Sweden
|
Sweden, 30, 0.37%
Sweden
30 publications, 0.37%
|
Bulgaria
|
Bulgaria, 26, 0.32%
Bulgaria
26 publications, 0.32%
|
Malaysia
|
Malaysia, 26, 0.32%
Malaysia
26 publications, 0.32%
|
Chile
|
Chile, 26, 0.32%
Chile
26 publications, 0.32%
|
Belgium
|
Belgium, 25, 0.31%
Belgium
25 publications, 0.31%
|
Denmark
|
Denmark, 22, 0.27%
Denmark
22 publications, 0.27%
|
Czech Republic
|
Czech Republic, 22, 0.27%
Czech Republic
22 publications, 0.27%
|
Ireland
|
Ireland, 18, 0.22%
Ireland
18 publications, 0.22%
|
Thailand
|
Thailand, 18, 0.22%
Thailand
18 publications, 0.22%
|
Morocco
|
Morocco, 17, 0.21%
Morocco
17 publications, 0.21%
|
Georgia
|
Georgia, 16, 0.2%
Georgia
16 publications, 0.2%
|
Tunisia
|
Tunisia, 16, 0.2%
Tunisia
16 publications, 0.2%
|
Portugal
|
Portugal, 15, 0.19%
Portugal
15 publications, 0.19%
|
Mexico
|
Mexico, 15, 0.19%
Mexico
15 publications, 0.19%
|
UAE
|
UAE, 14, 0.17%
UAE
14 publications, 0.17%
|
Oman
|
Oman, 13, 0.16%
Oman
13 publications, 0.16%
|
Azerbaijan
|
Azerbaijan, 12, 0.15%
Azerbaijan
12 publications, 0.15%
|
South Africa
|
South Africa, 12, 0.15%
South Africa
12 publications, 0.15%
|
Argentina
|
Argentina, 11, 0.14%
Argentina
11 publications, 0.14%
|
Qatar
|
Qatar, 11, 0.14%
Qatar
11 publications, 0.14%
|
Montenegro
|
Montenegro, 11, 0.14%
Montenegro
11 publications, 0.14%
|
Czechoslovakia
|
Czechoslovakia, 11, 0.14%
Czechoslovakia
11 publications, 0.14%
|
Bangladesh
|
Bangladesh, 10, 0.12%
Bangladesh
10 publications, 0.12%
|
Kuwait
|
Kuwait, 10, 0.12%
Kuwait
10 publications, 0.12%
|
Slovenia
|
Slovenia, 10, 0.12%
Slovenia
10 publications, 0.12%
|
Luxembourg
|
Luxembourg, 9, 0.11%
Luxembourg
9 publications, 0.11%
|
Finland
|
Finland, 9, 0.11%
Finland
9 publications, 0.11%
|
Croatia
|
Croatia, 9, 0.11%
Croatia
9 publications, 0.11%
|
Estonia
|
Estonia, 8, 0.1%
Estonia
8 publications, 0.1%
|
Lebanon
|
Lebanon, 8, 0.1%
Lebanon
8 publications, 0.1%
|
Slovakia
|
Slovakia, 8, 0.1%
Slovakia
8 publications, 0.1%
|
Trinidad and Tobago
|
Trinidad and Tobago, 8, 0.1%
Trinidad and Tobago
8 publications, 0.1%
|
Jordan
|
Jordan, 7, 0.09%
Jordan
7 publications, 0.09%
|
New Zealand
|
New Zealand, 7, 0.09%
New Zealand
7 publications, 0.09%
|
USSR
|
USSR, 7, 0.09%
USSR
7 publications, 0.09%
|
Belarus
|
Belarus, 6, 0.07%
Belarus
6 publications, 0.07%
|
Colombia
|
Colombia, 6, 0.07%
Colombia
6 publications, 0.07%
|
Moldova
|
Moldova, 6, 0.07%
Moldova
6 publications, 0.07%
|
Nigeria
|
Nigeria, 6, 0.07%
Nigeria
6 publications, 0.07%
|
Cuba
|
Cuba, 5, 0.06%
Cuba
5 publications, 0.06%
|
North Korea
|
North Korea, 4, 0.05%
North Korea
4 publications, 0.05%
|
Lithuania
|
Lithuania, 4, 0.05%
Lithuania
4 publications, 0.05%
|
Indonesia
|
Indonesia, 3, 0.04%
Indonesia
3 publications, 0.04%
|
Iraq
|
Iraq, 3, 0.04%
Iraq
3 publications, 0.04%
|
Cyprus
|
Cyprus, 3, 0.04%
Cyprus
3 publications, 0.04%
|
Uzbekistan
|
Uzbekistan, 3, 0.04%
Uzbekistan
3 publications, 0.04%
|
Fiji
|
Fiji, 3, 0.04%
Fiji
3 publications, 0.04%
|
Sri Lanka
|
Sri Lanka, 3, 0.04%
Sri Lanka
3 publications, 0.04%
|
Jamaica
|
Jamaica, 3, 0.04%
Jamaica
3 publications, 0.04%
|
Kazakhstan
|
Kazakhstan, 2, 0.02%
Kazakhstan
2 publications, 0.02%
|
Armenia
|
Armenia, 2, 0.02%
Armenia
2 publications, 0.02%
|
Gabon
|
Gabon, 2, 0.02%
Gabon
2 publications, 0.02%
|
Ethiopia
|
Ethiopia, 2, 0.02%
Ethiopia
2 publications, 0.02%
|
Benin
|
Benin, 1, 0.01%
Benin
1 publication, 0.01%
|
Bosnia and Herzegovina
|
Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1, 0.01%
Bosnia and Herzegovina
1 publication, 0.01%
|
Botswana
|
Botswana, 1, 0.01%
Botswana
1 publication, 0.01%
|
Venezuela
|
Venezuela, 1, 0.01%
Venezuela
1 publication, 0.01%
|
Kenya
|
Kenya, 1, 0.01%
Kenya
1 publication, 0.01%
|
Libya
|
Libya, 1, 0.01%
Libya
1 publication, 0.01%
|
Madagascar
|
Madagascar, 1, 0.01%
Madagascar
1 publication, 0.01%
|
Malta
|
Malta, 1, 0.01%
Malta
1 publication, 0.01%
|
Nepal
|
Nepal, 1, 0.01%
Nepal
1 publication, 0.01%
|
San Marino
|
San Marino, 1, 0.01%
San Marino
1 publication, 0.01%
|
Show all (67 more) | |
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
|
Publishing countries in 5 years
100
200
300
400
500
600
|
|
China
|
China, 523, 32.28%
China
523 publications, 32.28%
|
Iran
|
Iran, 184, 11.36%
Iran
184 publications, 11.36%
|
India
|
India, 146, 9.01%
India
146 publications, 9.01%
|
USA
|
USA, 110, 6.79%
USA
110 publications, 6.79%
|
Russia
|
Russia, 75, 4.63%
Russia
75 publications, 4.63%
|
Germany
|
Germany, 72, 4.44%
Germany
72 publications, 4.44%
|
Italy
|
Italy, 54, 3.33%
Italy
54 publications, 3.33%
|
Canada
|
Canada, 49, 3.02%
Canada
49 publications, 3.02%
|
France
|
France, 48, 2.96%
France
48 publications, 2.96%
|
Vietnam
|
Vietnam, 44, 2.72%
Vietnam
44 publications, 2.72%
|
Saudi Arabia
|
Saudi Arabia, 42, 2.59%
Saudi Arabia
42 publications, 2.59%
|
Turkey
|
Turkey, 40, 2.47%
Turkey
40 publications, 2.47%
|
Austria
|
Austria, 33, 2.04%
Austria
33 publications, 2.04%
|
United Kingdom
|
United Kingdom, 33, 2.04%
United Kingdom
33 publications, 2.04%
|
Poland
|
Poland, 33, 2.04%
Poland
33 publications, 2.04%
|
Egypt
|
Egypt, 32, 1.98%
Egypt
32 publications, 1.98%
|
Brazil
|
Brazil, 29, 1.79%
Brazil
29 publications, 1.79%
|
Algeria
|
Algeria, 23, 1.42%
Algeria
23 publications, 1.42%
|
Japan
|
Japan, 23, 1.42%
Japan
23 publications, 1.42%
|
Spain
|
Spain, 21, 1.3%
Spain
21 publications, 1.3%
|
Greece
|
Greece, 20, 1.23%
Greece
20 publications, 1.23%
|
Republic of Korea
|
Republic of Korea, 19, 1.17%
Republic of Korea
19 publications, 1.17%
|
Ukraine
|
Ukraine, 18, 1.11%
Ukraine
18 publications, 1.11%
|
Australia
|
Australia, 18, 1.11%
Australia
18 publications, 1.11%
|
Hungary
|
Hungary, 14, 0.86%
Hungary
14 publications, 0.86%
|
Thailand
|
Thailand, 14, 0.86%
Thailand
14 publications, 0.86%
|
Singapore
|
Singapore, 12, 0.74%
Singapore
12 publications, 0.74%
|
Israel
|
Israel, 9, 0.56%
Israel
9 publications, 0.56%
|
Morocco
|
Morocco, 9, 0.56%
Morocco
9 publications, 0.56%
|
Sweden
|
Sweden, 9, 0.56%
Sweden
9 publications, 0.56%
|
UAE
|
UAE, 8, 0.49%
UAE
8 publications, 0.49%
|
Serbia
|
Serbia, 8, 0.49%
Serbia
8 publications, 0.49%
|
Georgia
|
Georgia, 7, 0.43%
Georgia
7 publications, 0.43%
|
Lebanon
|
Lebanon, 6, 0.37%
Lebanon
6 publications, 0.37%
|
Tunisia
|
Tunisia, 6, 0.37%
Tunisia
6 publications, 0.37%
|
Chile
|
Chile, 6, 0.37%
Chile
6 publications, 0.37%
|
Netherlands
|
Netherlands, 5, 0.31%
Netherlands
5 publications, 0.31%
|
Norway
|
Norway, 5, 0.31%
Norway
5 publications, 0.31%
|
Belgium
|
Belgium, 4, 0.25%
Belgium
4 publications, 0.25%
|
Qatar
|
Qatar, 4, 0.25%
Qatar
4 publications, 0.25%
|
North Korea
|
North Korea, 4, 0.25%
North Korea
4 publications, 0.25%
|
Malaysia
|
Malaysia, 4, 0.25%
Malaysia
4 publications, 0.25%
|
Mexico
|
Mexico, 4, 0.25%
Mexico
4 publications, 0.25%
|
Azerbaijan
|
Azerbaijan, 3, 0.19%
Azerbaijan
3 publications, 0.19%
|
Argentina
|
Argentina, 3, 0.19%
Argentina
3 publications, 0.19%
|
Ireland
|
Ireland, 3, 0.19%
Ireland
3 publications, 0.19%
|
Kuwait
|
Kuwait, 3, 0.19%
Kuwait
3 publications, 0.19%
|
Luxembourg
|
Luxembourg, 3, 0.19%
Luxembourg
3 publications, 0.19%
|
Slovenia
|
Slovenia, 3, 0.19%
Slovenia
3 publications, 0.19%
|
Fiji
|
Fiji, 3, 0.19%
Fiji
3 publications, 0.19%
|
Finland
|
Finland, 3, 0.19%
Finland
3 publications, 0.19%
|
Croatia
|
Croatia, 3, 0.19%
Croatia
3 publications, 0.19%
|
Czech Republic
|
Czech Republic, 3, 0.19%
Czech Republic
3 publications, 0.19%
|
Sri Lanka
|
Sri Lanka, 3, 0.19%
Sri Lanka
3 publications, 0.19%
|
Portugal
|
Portugal, 2, 0.12%
Portugal
2 publications, 0.12%
|
Bulgaria
|
Bulgaria, 2, 0.12%
Bulgaria
2 publications, 0.12%
|
Gabon
|
Gabon, 2, 0.12%
Gabon
2 publications, 0.12%
|
Iraq
|
Iraq, 2, 0.12%
Iraq
2 publications, 0.12%
|
Cuba
|
Cuba, 2, 0.12%
Cuba
2 publications, 0.12%
|
Pakistan
|
Pakistan, 2, 0.12%
Pakistan
2 publications, 0.12%
|
Romania
|
Romania, 2, 0.12%
Romania
2 publications, 0.12%
|
Slovakia
|
Slovakia, 2, 0.12%
Slovakia
2 publications, 0.12%
|
Uzbekistan
|
Uzbekistan, 2, 0.12%
Uzbekistan
2 publications, 0.12%
|
Montenegro
|
Montenegro, 2, 0.12%
Montenegro
2 publications, 0.12%
|
South Africa
|
South Africa, 2, 0.12%
South Africa
2 publications, 0.12%
|
Belarus
|
Belarus, 1, 0.06%
Belarus
1 publication, 0.06%
|
Bosnia and Herzegovina
|
Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1, 0.06%
Bosnia and Herzegovina
1 publication, 0.06%
|
Denmark
|
Denmark, 1, 0.06%
Denmark
1 publication, 0.06%
|
Indonesia
|
Indonesia, 1, 0.06%
Indonesia
1 publication, 0.06%
|
Colombia
|
Colombia, 1, 0.06%
Colombia
1 publication, 0.06%
|
Madagascar
|
Madagascar, 1, 0.06%
Madagascar
1 publication, 0.06%
|
Malta
|
Malta, 1, 0.06%
Malta
1 publication, 0.06%
|
Moldova
|
Moldova, 1, 0.06%
Moldova
1 publication, 0.06%
|
New Zealand
|
New Zealand, 1, 0.06%
New Zealand
1 publication, 0.06%
|
Oman
|
Oman, 1, 0.06%
Oman
1 publication, 0.06%
|
Switzerland
|
Switzerland, 1, 0.06%
Switzerland
1 publication, 0.06%
|
Ethiopia
|
Ethiopia, 1, 0.06%
Ethiopia
1 publication, 0.06%
|
Show all (47 more) | |
100
200
300
400
500
600
|
6 profile journal articles
Eremeyev Viktor

University of Cagliari

Gdańsk University of Technology
303 publications,
7 232 citations
h-index: 47
5 profile journal articles
Aouadi Moncef
119 publications,
1 384 citations
h-index: 18
3 profile journal articles
Hafez Mohamed

University of California, Davis
111 publications,
851 citations
h-index: 16
3 profile journal articles
Wierschem Andreas

University of Erlangen–Nuremberg
64 publications,
1 313 citations
h-index: 21
2 profile journal articles
Kuznetsova Iren
DSc in Physics and Mathematics, Associate Professor

Kotelnikov Institute of Radioengineering and Electronics of the Russian Academy of Sciences
252 publications,
2 359 citations
h-index: 24
2 profile journal articles
Miglani Aseem
25 publications,
127 citations
h-index: 7
1 profile journal article
Frolov Sergey

N.N. Semenov Federal Research Center for Chemical Physics of the Russian Academy of Sciences
266 publications,
5 358 citations
h-index: 34
1 profile journal article
Kerzhaev Alexander
41 publications,
93 citations
h-index: 6
1 profile journal article
Braun Manfred
PhD in Physics and Mathematics, Professor
18 publications,
217 citations
h-index: 6
1 profile journal article
Rossi Rodrigo
🥼 🤝
39 publications,
312 citations
h-index: 11
1 profile journal article
Solyaev Yury
101 publications,
930 citations
h-index: 19