Countries where authors publish in Family Court Review
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Family Court Review. 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 Family Court Review with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Family Court Review more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers published in Family Court Review. 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 Family Court Review.
About Family Court Review
The 1.6k papers published in Family Court Review in the last decades have received a total of 16.0k indexed citations . Papers published in Family Court Review usually cover Demography (530 papers), Safety Research (309 papers), Reproductive Medicine (202 papers), Health (149 papers) and Clinical Psychology (382 papers) specifically the topics of Family Dynamics and Relationships (521 papers), Child Welfare and Adoption (300 papers), Legal Systems and Judicial Processes (236 papers), Child Abuse and Trauma (228 papers), Reproductive Health and Technologies (200 papers), Homicide, Infanticide, and Child Abuse (168 papers), Intimate Partner and Family Violence (137 papers) and Intergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving (128 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Family Court Review are Joan Berlin Kelly, Janet R. Johnston, Michael P. Johnson, William G. Austin, Nicholas C. Bala, Richard A. Warshak, Matthew J. Sullivan, Sanford L. Braver, Michael E. Lamb and Benjamin D. Garber.
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.