This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Hand Surgery. 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 Hand Surgery with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Hand Surgery more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers published in Hand Surgery. 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 Hand Surgery.
About Hand Surgery
The 904 papers published in Hand Surgery in the last decades have received a total of 8.4k indexed citations . Papers published in Hand Surgery usually cover Rehabilitation (298 papers), Developmental Biology (74 papers), Surgery (729 papers), Rheumatology (184 papers) and Pharmacy (48 papers) specifically the topics of Orthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation (609 papers), Elbow and Forearm Trauma Treatment (295 papers), Peripheral Nerve Disorders (148 papers), Musculoskeletal synovial abnormalities and treatments (108 papers), Bone fractures and treatments (106 papers), Shoulder Injury and Treatment (89 papers), Nerve Injury and Rehabilitation (75 papers) and Congenital limb and hand anomalies (74 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Hand Surgery are Jorge L. Orbay, U Mennen, Gregory I. Bain, Akio Minami, Norimasa Iwasaki, Bruce R. Johnstone, Kazuo Ikeda, Boris K. K. Fung, Luc De Smet and Pak‐Cheong Ho.
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.