National Forensic Institute

9.7k citations
733 papers ·

Impact in

Papers in

    • Forensic Toxicology and Drug Analysis 159
    • Restraint-Related Deaths 21
    • Poisoning and overdose treatments 17

National Forensic Institute

676 papers receiving 9.7k citations

Peers

National Forensic Institute
Comparison fields: 5 of 202
  • Toxicology 1.6k
  • Molecular Medicine 521
  • Archeology 465
  • Analytical Chemistry 316
  • Genetics 734
Replace Institute of Forensic Science with:
Institute of Forensic Science China
Kyoto Women's University Japan
Seonam University South Korea
National Institute for Minamata Disease Japan
Shujitsu University Japan
Criminal Investigation Police University of China China
Kyushu University of Medical Science Japan
First Bethune Hospital of Jilin University China
National Institute of Food and Drug Safety Evaluation South Korea
Osaka Prefectural Government Japan
National Forensic Institute relative to Institute of Forensic Science China Institute of Forensic Science's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×10×20×30×37.2×
Institute of Forensic Science · 1×
Citations per year

Countries citing scholars working at National Forensic Institute

Since Specialization
Citations

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

Fields of papers published by authors at National Forensic Institute

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers affiliated with National Forensic Institute 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 National Forensic Institute at the time of their publication.

About National Forensic Institute

In recent decades, authors affiliated with National Forensic Institute have published 733 papers, which have received a total of 9.7k indexed citations . Scholars at this organization have produced 160 papers in Toxicology, 37 papers in Emergency Medicine, 56 papers in Archeology, 71 papers in Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging and 89 papers in Genetics on the topics of Forensic Toxicology and Drug Analysis (159 papers), Forensic and Genetic Research (74 papers), Autopsy Techniques and Outcomes (69 papers), Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies (51 papers), Restraint-Related Deaths (21 papers), Identification and Quantification in Food (17 papers), Poisoning and overdose treatments (17 papers) and Forensic Entomology and Diptera Studies (16 papers). Their work is cited by papers focused on Toxicology (1.6k citations), Molecular Medicine (521 citations), Archeology (465 citations), Analytical Chemistry (316 citations) and Genetics (734 citations). Authors at National Forensic Institute collaborate with scholars in South Korea, United States and China and have published in prestigious journals including Forensic Science International, Journal of Forensic Sciences, International Journal of Legal Medicine, Legal Medicine and Scientific Reports. Some of National Forensic Institute's most productive authors include Eunmi Kim, Heesun Chung, Jung Hun Lee, Sang Hee Lee, Kwang Seung Park, Jihyun Kim, Wonkyung Yang, Chang-Ro Lee, Young Bae Kim and Byeong Chul Jeong.

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