Countries where authors publish in Computer Music Journal
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Computer Music 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 Computer Music Journal with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Computer Music Journal more than expected).
Fields of papers published in Computer Music Journal
This network shows the impact of papers published in Computer Music 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 Computer Music Journal.
About Computer Music Journal
The 1.2k papers published in Computer Music Journal in the last decades have received a total of 25.9k indexed citations . Papers published in Computer Music Journal usually cover Signal Processing (592 papers), Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (840 papers), Music (123 papers), Cognitive Neuroscience (296 papers) and Architecture (11 papers) specifically the topics of Music Technology and Sound Studies (821 papers), Music and Audio Processing (562 papers), Neuroscience and Music Perception (245 papers), Speech and Audio Processing (113 papers), Diverse Musicological Studies (68 papers), Musicology and Musical Analysis (41 papers), Interactive and Immersive Displays (30 papers) and Tactile and Sensory Interactions (28 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Computer Music Journal are Ray S. Jackendoff, Fred Lerdahl, Peter Child, Julius O. Smith, DAVID L. WESSEL, Curtis Roads, Durand R. Begault, Miller Puckette, Kim Cascone and Anders Friberg.
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.