Countries where authors publish in Equine practice
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Equine practice. 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 Equine practice with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Equine practice more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers published in Equine practice. 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 Equine practice.
About Equine practice
The 241 papers published in Equine practice in the last decades have received a total of 1.7k indexed citations . Papers published in Equine practice usually cover Equine (187 papers), Small Animals (38 papers), Agronomy and Crop Science (18 papers), Microbiology (4 papers) and Parasitology (4 papers) specifically the topics of Veterinary Equine Medical Research (187 papers), Veterinary Pharmacology and Anesthesia (17 papers), Reproductive Physiology in Livestock (14 papers), Veterinary Oncology Research (13 papers), Helminth infection and control (9 papers), Veterinary Orthopedics and Neurology (6 papers), Veterinary Medicine and Surgery (5 papers) and Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology (4 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Equine practice are Harold F. Hintz, R. Reid Hanson, Francis Verschooten, Martin O. Furr, Debra Deem Morris, Nabil Ahmed Misk, Tarek A. Hammad, Nadia F. Cymbaluk, Margo L. Mehl and Lance E. Perryman.
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.