Mark S. Nash

200 papers receiving 8.0k citations

Peers

Mark S. Nash
Comparison fields: 5 of 148
  • Rehabilitation 1.8k
  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine 3.7k
  • Psychiatry and Mental health 1.6k
  • Ophthalmology 642
  • Neurology 503
Replace Hans‐Christoph Diener with:
Hans‐Christoph Diener Germany
Roy Freeman United States
Nadine Attal France
Helle K. Iversen Denmark
Cristina Tassorelli Italy
Francesco Pierelli Italy
Wise Young United States
Flemming W. Bach Denmark
Douglas W. Zochodne Canada
Giorgio Sandrini Italy
Mark S. Nash relative to Hans‐Christoph Diener Germany Hans‐Christoph Diener's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×3.5×
Hans‐Christoph Diener · 1×
Citations per year

Countries citing papers authored by Mark S. Nash

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of Mark S. Nash's research. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by Mark S. Nash with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Mark S. Nash more than expected).

Fields of papers citing papers by Mark S. Nash

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers produced by Mark S. Nash. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers produced by Mark S. Nash. The network helps show where Mark S. Nash may publish in the future.

Co-authors

The 25 scholars most cited alongside Mark S. Nash, linked wherever they have co-authored with each other. Click a name or a connecting line to browse the papers they share.

Border = papers with Mark S. Nash Line = papers co-authored together Mark S. Nash links everyone, so they are left out of the graph.

All Works

20 of 20 papers shown

Showing the 20 most-cited of 202 papers — load more, or switch the sort, to bring in the rest.

#Work
1 1999352
2 2002339
3 2002335
4 2004333
5 1995230
6 2001154
7 2007139
8 2007138
9 1994135
10 2005132
11 2013127
12 1999126
13 2001121
14 2001115
15 2009113
16 1999101
17 199898
18
Clinical evaluation of computerized functional electrical stimulation after spinal cord injury: a multicenter pilot study.
198898
19 201897
20 201694

About Mark S. Nash

Mark S. Nash is a scholar working on Pathology and Forensic Medicine, Psychiatry and Mental health, Rehabilitation, Molecular Biology and Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine, having authored 202 papers that have together received 8.3k indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Spinal Cord Injury Research (98 papers), Cerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders (43 papers), Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery (39 papers), Receptor Mechanisms and Signaling (16 papers), Muscle activation and electromyography studies (15 papers), Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research (14 papers), Nerve Injury and Rehabilitation (13 papers) and Retinal Development and Disorders (13 papers). The work is most often cited by research in Rehabilitation (1.8k citations), Pathology and Forensic Medicine (3.7k citations), Psychiatry and Mental health (1.6k citations), Ophthalmology (642 citations) and Neurology (503 citations). Mark S. Nash has collaborated with scholars based in United States, United Kingdom and Switzerland. Frequent co-authors include Patrick L. Jacobs, Neville N. Osborne, Rachel E. Cowan, Brooks Applegate, John P. M. Wood, Glyn Chidlow, Robert Gailey, R. A. John Challiss, Jochen Kressler and Stefan R. Nahorski. Their work appears in journals such as Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Topics in Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation, Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, Spinal Cord and Experimental Eye Research.

Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.

Explore authors with similar magnitude of impact