Biological reviews/Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society

298.2k citations
2.4k papers · · active since 1950

Impact in

Papers in

Biological reviews/Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society

2.3k papers receiving 273.4k citations

Peers

Biological reviews/Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society
Comparison fields: 5 of 242
  • Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics 90.5k
  • Nature and Landscape Conservation 57.1k
  • Ecology 96.6k
  • Developmental Biology 7.8k
  • Ecological Modeling 15.4k
Replace Biology Letters with:
Biology Letters United States
Methods in Ecology and Evolution United States
Journal of Evolutionary Biology United States
Functional Ecology United States
Biotropica United States
Systematic Biology United States
Biodiversity and Conservation United States
Ecological Monographs United States
PLoS Biology United States
Ecography United States
Biological reviews/Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society relative to Biology Letters United States Biology Letters's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×1.5×2.3×
Biology Letters · 1×
Citations per year

Countries where authors publish in Biological reviews/Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Biological reviews/Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society. 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 Biological reviews/Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Biological reviews/Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society more than expected).

Fields of papers published in Biological reviews/Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers published in Biological reviews/Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society. 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 Biological reviews/Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

About Biological reviews/Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society

The 2.4k papers published in Biological reviews/Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society in the last decades have received a total of 298.2k indexed citations . Papers published in Biological reviews/Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society usually cover Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics (762 papers), Nature and Landscape Conservation (404 papers), Developmental Biology (69 papers), Paleontology (207 papers) and Ecological Modeling (120 papers) specifically the topics of Plant and animal studies (361 papers), Animal Behavior and Reproduction (306 papers), Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies (205 papers), Insect and Arachnid Ecology and Behavior (169 papers), Wildlife Ecology and Conservation (160 papers), Physiological and biochemical adaptations (138 papers), Evolution and Paleontology Studies (122 papers) and Species Distribution and Climate Change (120 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Biological reviews/Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society are P. J. Grubb, Peter Mitchell, George A. Parker, Shinichi Nakagawa, Michael D. Jennions, Stephen Jay Gould, Marion Petrie, Ulrika Candolin, Innes C. Cuthill and Douglas S. Glazier.

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 journals with similar magnitude of impact