Thomas Bishop
Impact in
-
- Nerve injury and regeneration
- Neuropeptides and Animal Physiology
- Physiology top 10%
- Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
Papers in
-
- CRISPR and Genetic Engineering 3
-
- Nerve injury and regeneration 3
- Axon Guidance and Neuronal Signaling 2
- Co-authors
- Stephen B. McMahon (7 shared papers)Fabien Marchand (2 shared papers)Ping K. Yip (2 shared papers)Antony R. Young (3 shared papers)Lawrence Moon (1 shared paper)Steve Thompson (1 shared paper)Michael Thacker (1 shared paper)Anna K. Clark (1 shared paper)
- Journals
- Journal of Anatomy (2 papers)Pain (2 papers)European Journal of Pain (2 papers)iScience (1 paper)Journal of Experimental Biology (1 paper)
- Partner nations
- United KingdomUnited StatesNew Zealand
In The Last Decade
Thomas Bishop
12 papers receiving 647 citations
Peers
Comparison fields: 5 of 86
- Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience 266
- Physiology 361
- Developmental Neuroscience 54
- Sensory Systems 50
- Rehabilitation 54
Countries citing papers authored by Thomas Bishop
This map shows the geographic impact of Thomas Bishop'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 Thomas Bishop with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Thomas Bishop more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by Thomas Bishop
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Thomas Bishop. 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 Thomas Bishop. The network helps show where Thomas Bishop may publish in the future.
Co-authors
The 25 scholars most cited alongside Thomas Bishop, linked wherever they have co-authored with each other. Click a name or a connecting line to browse the papers they share.
All Works
| # | Work | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2008 | 271 | |
| 2 | 2002 | 88 | |
| 3 | 2008 | 77 | |
| 4 | 2007 | 75 | |
| 5 | 2010 | 56 | |
| 6 | 2020 | 52 | |
| 7 | 2017 | 20 | |
| 8 | 2021 | 8 | |
| 9 | 2022 | 4 | |
| 10 | The dorsal root transitional zone model of CNS axon regeneration: morphological findings | 2002 | 3 |
| 11 | 24: The dorsal root transitional zone model of CNS axon regeneration: morphometric findings | 2002 | 2 |
| 12 | 2023 | 1 |
About Thomas Bishop
Thomas Bishop is a scholar working on Molecular Biology, Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience, Physiology, Genetics and Rehabilitation, having authored 12 papers that have together received 657 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Animal Genetics and Reproduction (3 papers), Nerve injury and regeneration (3 papers), Pain Mechanisms and Treatments (3 papers), CRISPR and Genetic Engineering (3 papers), Exercise and Physiological Responses (2 papers), Axon Guidance and Neuronal Signaling (2 papers), Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology (1 paper) and Nerve Injury and Rehabilitation (1 paper). The work is most often cited by research in Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience (266 citations), Physiology (361 citations), Developmental Neuroscience (54 citations), Sensory Systems (50 citations) and Rehabilitation (54 citations). Thomas Bishop has collaborated with scholars based in United Kingdom, United States and New Zealand. Frequent co-authors include Stephen B. McMahon, Fabien Marchand, Ping K. Yip, Antony R. Young, Lawrence Moon, Steve Thompson, Michael Thacker, Anna K. Clark, John Grist and Alison L. Van Eenennaam. Their work appears in journals such as Journal of Anatomy, Pain, European Journal of Pain, iScience and Journal of Experimental Biology.
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.