Mark S. Nash

205 papers receiving 8.4k citations

Peers

Mark S. Nash
Comparison fields: 5 of 146
  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine 3.5k
  • Rehabilitation 1.0k
  • Ophthalmology 550
  • Psychiatry and Mental health 866
  • Neurology 472
Replace Francesco Pierelli with:
Francesco Pierelli Italy
Cristina Tassorelli Italy
Wise Young United States
Helle K. Iversen Denmark
Giuseppe Lauria Italy
Giorgio Sandrini Italy
Kim J. Burchiel United States
Philip J. Siddall Australia
Andrew Eisen Canada
Dale Corbett Canada
Mark S. Nash relative to Francesco Pierelli Italy Francesco Pierelli's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×2×4×5.4×
Francesco Pierelli · 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 208 papers — load more, or switch the sort, to bring in the rest.

#Work
1 1999363
2 2004351
3 2002350
4 2002343
5 1995246
6 2001165
7 2007150
8 2007148
9 2005142
10 1994141
11 2013138
12 1999134
13 2009127
14 2001126
15 2001122
16 1999109
17
Clinical evaluation of computerized functional electrical stimulation after spinal cord injury: a multicenter pilot study.
1988107
18 1998102
19 2018102
20 2018100

About Mark S. Nash

Mark S. Nash is a scholar working on Pathology and Forensic Medicine, Molecular Biology, Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience, Rehabilitation and Psychiatry and Mental health, having authored 208 papers that have together received 8.7k indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Spinal Cord Injury Research (101 papers), Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research (14 papers), Receptor Mechanisms and Signaling (14 papers), Cerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders (14 papers), Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery (14 papers), Retinal Development and Disorders (12 papers), Protein Kinase Regulation and GTPase Signaling (8 papers) and Cardiac Arrest and Resuscitation (8 papers). The work is most often cited by research in Pathology and Forensic Medicine (3.5k citations), Rehabilitation (1.0k citations), Ophthalmology (550 citations), Psychiatry and Mental health (866 citations) and Neurology (472 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