Universidade Católica de Pelotas
Impact in
- Biological Psychiatry top 5%
-
- Birth, Development, and Health
Papers in
-
- Digital Filter Design and Implementation 65
- Top scholars
- Fernando C. BarrosMarı́a Cristina GonzálezCesar Gomes VictoraBernardo Lessa HortaAluísio J. D. BarrosSteven B. HeymsfieldRicardo Tavares PinheiroRicardo Azevedo da Silva
- Journals
- Cadernos de Saúde Pública (78 papers)Revista de Saúde Pública (41 papers)Ciência & Saúde Coletiva (37 papers)Clinical Nutrition (33 papers)Journal of Affective Disorders (32 papers)
- Partner nations
- BrazilUnited StatesCanada
In The Last Decade
Universidade Católica de Pelotas
2.3k papers receiving 54.2k citations
Peers
Comparison fields: 5 of 228
- Biological Psychiatry 891
- Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health 5.7k
- Physiology 9k
- Obstetrics and Gynecology 3.1k
- Nutrition and Dietetics 3.7k
Countries citing scholars working at Universidade Católica de Pelotas
This map shows the geographic impact of research produced by authors working at Universidade Católica de Pelotas. 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 Universidade Católica de Pelotas with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Universidade Católica de Pelotas more than expected).
Fields of papers published by authors at Universidade Católica de Pelotas
This network shows the impact of papers affiliated with Universidade Católica de Pelotas 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 Universidade Católica de Pelotas at the time of their publication.
About Universidade Católica de Pelotas
In recent decades, authors affiliated with Universidade Católica de Pelotas have published 2.6k papers, which have received a total of 54.2k indexed citations . Scholars at this organization have produced 21 papers in Biological Psychiatry, 105 papers in Signal Processing, 129 papers in Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health, 204 papers in Physiology and 169 papers in General Health Professions on the topics of Low-power high-performance VLSI design (102 papers), Nutrition and Health in Aging (92 papers), Maternal and Neonatal Healthcare (91 papers), Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum (84 papers), Digital Filter Design and Implementation (65 papers), Bipolar Disorder and Treatment (62 papers), Birth, Development, and Health (62 papers) and Body Composition Measurement Techniques (60 papers). Their work is cited by papers focused on Biological Psychiatry (891 citations), Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health (5.7k citations), Physiology (9k citations), Obstetrics and Gynecology (3.1k citations) and Nutrition and Dietetics (3.7k citations). Authors at Universidade Católica de Pelotas collaborate with scholars in Brazil, United States and Canada and have published in prestigious journals including Cadernos de Saúde Pública, Revista de Saúde Pública, Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, Clinical Nutrition and Journal of Affective Disorders. Some of Universidade Católica de Pelotas's most productive authors include Fernando C. Barros, Marı́a Cristina González, Cesar Gomes Victora, Bernardo Lessa Horta, Aluísio J. D. Barros, Steven B. Heymsfield, Ricardo Tavares Pinheiro, Ricardo Azevedo da Silva, Alícia Matijasevich and Iná S. Santos.
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.