University of the Incarnate Word

1.2k papers receiving 16.5k citations

Peers

University of the Incarnate Word
Comparison fields: 5 of 238
  • Research and Theory 125
  • Geriatrics and Gerontology 302
  • Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 145
  • Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology 109
  • Health Informatics 108
Replace Midwestern State University with:
Midwestern State University United States
University of Louisiana at Monroe United States
University of North Texas at Dallas United States
Abilene Christian University United States
St. John's School United States
Xavier University of Louisiana United States
Texas Southern University United States
Tarleton State University United States
West Texas A&M University United States
Southern University and Agricultural and Mechanical College United States
University of the Incarnate Word relative to Midwestern State University United States Midwestern State University's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×2×4×6×8×9.7×
Midwestern State University · 1×
Citations per year

Countries citing scholars working at University of the Incarnate Word

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of research produced by authors working at University of the Incarnate Word. 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 the Incarnate Word 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 the Incarnate Word more than expected).

Fields of papers published by authors at University of the Incarnate Word

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

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

About University of the Incarnate Word

In recent decades, authors affiliated with University of the Incarnate Word have published 1.6k papers, which have received a total of 20.0k indexed citations . Scholars at this organization have produced 13 papers in Issues, ethics and legal aspects, 8 papers in Research and Theory, 20 papers in Geriatrics and Gerontology, 46 papers in Ophthalmology and 162 papers in Education on the topics of Innovations in Medical Education (30 papers), Digital Marketing and Social Media (28 papers), Diversity and Career in Medicine (25 papers), Online and Blended Learning (25 papers), Glaucoma and retinal disorders (24 papers), Customer Service Quality and Loyalty (23 papers), Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior (21 papers) and Technology Adoption and User Behaviour (21 papers). Their work is cited by papers focused on Research and Theory (125 citations), Geriatrics and Gerontology (302 citations), Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology (145 citations), Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology (109 citations) and Health Informatics (108 citations). Authors at University of the Incarnate Word collaborate with scholars in United States, China and United Kingdom and have published in prestigious journals including American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, PLoS ONE, Journal of Hispanic Higher Education and The FASEB Journal. Some of University of the Incarnate Word's most productive authors include Stefanie S. Boswell, David S. Fike, Angelina I. T. Kiser, Jeffery A. Greathouse, Garrison Sposito, Shih Yung Chou, Neal T. Skipper, Sungho Park, Alan K. Soper and Rebecca Sutton.

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