Fungal Biology Reviews

339 papers and 14.7k indexed citations i.

About

The 339 papers published in Fungal Biology Reviews in the last decades have received a total of 14.7k indexed citations. Papers published in Fungal Biology Reviews usually cover Plant Science (189 papers), Molecular Biology (141 papers) and Cell Biology (121 papers) specifically the topics of Plant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases (106 papers), Mycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions (96 papers) and Fungal and yeast genetics research (55 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Fungal Biology Reviews are A. Elizabeth Arnold, Katja Sterflinger, Thomas N. Sieber, Francis W. M. R. Schwarze, Michael J. Wingfield, Bernard Slippers, Arturo Casadevall, Leho Tedersoo, Matthew E. Smith and Verena Seidl.

In The Last Decade

Fields of papers published in Fungal Biology Reviews

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers published in Fungal Biology Reviews. 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 Fungal Biology Reviews.

Countries where authors publish in Fungal Biology Reviews

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Fungal Biology Reviews. 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 Fungal Biology Reviews with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Fungal Biology Reviews more than expected).

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

Rankless by CCL
2025