Missouri Botanical Garden

124.5k citations
4.9k papers ·

Impact in

Papers in

Missouri Botanical Garden

4.4k papers receiving 115.5k citations

Peers

Missouri Botanical Garden
Comparison fields: 5 of 230
  • Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics 59.7k
  • Ecological Modeling 9.4k
  • Nature and Landscape Conservation 24.5k
  • Forestry 4.7k
  • Plant Science 40.8k
Replace Field Museum of Natural History with:
Field Museum of Natural History United States
Illinois Department of Natural Resources United States
Northern Research Station United States
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources United States
Sewanee: The University of the South United States
Southern Research Station United States
Louisiana Department of Natural Resources United States
Louisiana State University Agricultural Center United States
Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station United States
Michigan Department of Natural Resources United States
Missouri Botanical Garden relative to Field Museum of Natural History United States Field Museum of Natural History's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×3.0×
Field Museum of Natural History · 1×
Citations per year

Countries citing scholars working at Missouri Botanical Garden

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of research produced by authors working at Missouri Botanical Garden. 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 papers produced at Missouri Botanical Garden with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Missouri Botanical Garden more than expected).

Fields of papers published by authors at Missouri Botanical Garden

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers affiliated with Missouri Botanical Garden at the time of their publication. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers affiliated with Missouri Botanical Garden at the time of their publication.

About Missouri Botanical Garden

In recent decades, authors affiliated with Missouri Botanical Garden have published 4.9k papers, which have received a total of 124.5k indexed citations . Scholars at this organization have produced 3.4k papers in Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, 258 papers in Forestry, 2.1k papers in Plant Science, 49 papers in Horticulture and 198 papers in Ecological Modeling on the topics of Plant Diversity and Evolution (1.8k papers), Plant and animal studies (1.3k papers), Plant and Fungal Species Descriptions (991 papers), Botany, Ecology, and Taxonomy Studies (623 papers), Botany and Plant Ecology Studies (498 papers), Fern and Epiphyte Biology (451 papers), Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies (432 papers) and Bryophyte Studies and Records (349 papers). Their work is cited by papers focused on Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics (59.7k citations), Ecological Modeling (9.4k citations), Nature and Landscape Conservation (24.5k citations), Forestry (4.7k citations) and Plant Science (40.8k citations). Authors at Missouri Botanical Garden collaborate with scholars in United States, France and United Kingdom and have published in prestigious journals including Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden, Taxon, Phytotaxa, American Journal of Botany and The Bryologist. Some of Missouri Botanical Garden's most productive authors include Peter H. Raven, Alwyn H. Gentry, Ihsan A. Al‐Shehbaz, Peter Goldblatt, James Aronson, Susanne S. Renner, Oliver L. Phillips, Rainer W. Bussmann, John C. Manning and Dorothea Bedigian.

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 institutions with similar magnitude of impact