Countries where authors publish in Allelopathy Journal
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Allelopathy Journal. 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 published in Allelopathy Journal with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Allelopathy Journal more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers published in Allelopathy Journal. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers published in Allelopathy Journal.
About Allelopathy Journal
The 607 papers published in Allelopathy Journal in the last decades have received a total of 3.8k indexed citations . Papers published in Allelopathy Journal usually cover Plant Science (466 papers), Food Science (64 papers), Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics (55 papers), Agronomy and Crop Science (28 papers) and Insect Science (30 papers) specifically the topics of Allelopathy and phytotoxic interactions (320 papers), Weed Control and Herbicide Applications (89 papers), Plant Parasitism and Resistance (67 papers), Seed Germination and Physiology (53 papers), Chemical synthesis and alkaloids (40 papers), Insect Pest Control Strategies (38 papers), Essential Oils and Antimicrobial Activity (36 papers) and Plant tissue culture and regeneration (28 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Allelopathy Journal are J. R. Qasem, Stephen O. Duke, S. S. Narwal, Rensen Zeng, Shaolin Peng, Arshad Javaid, Chang‐Hung Chou, Baoming Chen, Nimisha Amist and Sanjai Saxena.
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.