Countries where authors publish in Mycological Progress
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Mycological Progress. 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 Mycological Progress with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Mycological Progress more than expected).
Fields of papers published in Mycological Progress
This network shows the impact of papers published in Mycological Progress. 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 Mycological Progress.
About Mycological Progress
The 1.6k papers published in Mycological Progress in the last decades have received a total of 24.3k indexed citations . Papers published in Mycological Progress usually cover Cell Biology (1.1k papers), Plant Science (1.4k papers), Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics (554 papers), Pharmacology (345 papers) and Insect Science (131 papers) specifically the topics of Plant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases (1.1k papers), Mycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions (1.1k papers), Yeasts and Rust Fungi Studies (371 papers), Lichen and fungal ecology (353 papers), Fungal Biology and Applications (331 papers), Plant Pathogens and Resistance (149 papers), Plant and Fungal Species Descriptions (113 papers) and Forest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies (85 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Mycological Progress are Reinhard Agerer, Franz Oberwinkler, Kevin D. Hyde, Marc Stadler, Bao‐Kai Cui, Michael Fischer, P.W. Crous, Marco Thines, Yu‐Cheng Dai and Olaf Schmidt.
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.