UK Climate Projections Science Report: Climate Change Projections
Impact in
- Journal
- ePrints Soton (University of Southampton)
In The Last Decade
doi.org/w12900003 →Countries where authors are citing UK Climate Projections Science Report: Climate Change Projections
This map shows the geographic impact of UK Climate Projections Science Report: Climate Change Projections. 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 UK Climate Projections Science Report: Climate Change Projections with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites UK Climate Projections Science Report: Climate Change Projections more than expected).
Fields of papers citing UK Climate Projections Science Report: Climate Change Projections
This network shows the impact of UK Climate Projections Science Report: Climate Change Projections. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the UK Climate Projections Science Report: Climate Change Projections.
About UK Climate Projections Science Report: Climate Change Projections
This paper, published in 2009, received 536 indexed citations . Written by James M. Murphy, David M. H. Sexton, Geoff Jenkins, Ben Booth, Matthew Collins, Glen Harris, Elizabeth Kendon, Richard Betts, Simon J. Brown and Kathryn Humphrey. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Global and Planetary Change (284 citations), Water Science and Technology (134 citations), Atmospheric Science (111 citations), Environmental Engineering (89 citations) and Ecology (72 citations). Published in ePrints Soton (University of Southampton).
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.
This paper is also available at doi.org/w12900003.