University of Memphis

24.2k papers receiving 818.1k citations

Peers

University of Memphis
Comparison fields: 5 of 252
  • Developmental and Educational Psychology 34k
  • Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management 27.5k
  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology 35.4k
  • Clinical Psychology 42.5k
  • Cognitive Neuroscience 39.1k
Replace University of Illinois System with:
University of Illinois System United States
University of Alabama United States
Auburn University United States
Southern Illinois University Carbondale United States
Georgia Institute of Technology United States
University of Missouri United States
University of Tennessee at Knoxville United States
Tulane University United States
University of Kentucky United States
Indiana University Bloomington United States
University of Memphis relative to University of Illinois System United States University of Illinois System's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×1.5×
University of Illinois System · 1×
Citations per year

Countries citing scholars working at University of Memphis

Since Specialization
Citations

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

Fields of papers published by authors at University of Memphis

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers affiliated with University of Memphis 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 University of Memphis at the time of their publication.

About University of Memphis

In recent decades, authors affiliated with University of Memphis have published 25.6k papers, which have received a total of 820.2k indexed citations . Scholars at this organization have produced 446 papers in Discrete Mathematics and Combinatorics, 874 papers in Developmental and Educational Psychology, 946 papers in Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, 1.1k papers in Clinical Psychology and 1.1k papers in Cognitive Neuroscience on the topics of Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning (408 papers), Limits and Structures in Graph Theory (383 papers), earthquake and tectonic studies (375 papers), Smoking Behavior and Cessation (333 papers), Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes (262 papers), Approximation Theory and Sequence Spaces (242 papers), Financial Markets and Investment Strategies (210 papers) and Mathematical Inequalities and Applications (205 papers). Their work is cited by papers focused on Developmental and Educational Psychology (34k citations), Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management (27.5k citations), Experimental and Cognitive Psychology (35.4k citations), Clinical Psychology (42.5k citations) and Cognitive Neuroscience (39.1k citations). Authors at University of Memphis collaborate with scholars in United States, China and United Kingdom and have published in prestigious journals including Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Journal of Biological Chemistry, Discrete Mathematics, PLoS ONE and Seismological Research Letters. Some of University of Memphis's most productive authors include Owen Richard Lightsey, Albert Bandura, Arthur C. Graesser, Robert A. Neimeyer, William R. Shadish, Béla Bollobás, Naftali Raz, Thomas D. Cook, Dipankar Dasgupta and Danielle S. McNamara.

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