Natural Resource Modeling

805 papers and 12.2k indexed citations i.

About

The 805 papers published in Natural Resource Modeling in the last decades have received a total of 12.2k indexed citations. Papers published in Natural Resource Modeling usually cover Global and Planetary Change (345 papers), Economics and Econometrics (245 papers) and Nature and Landscape Conservation (165 papers) specifically the topics of Marine and fisheries research (150 papers), Economic and Environmental Valuation (126 papers) and Mathematical and Theoretical Epidemiology and Ecology Models (109 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Natural Resource Modeling are Floyd W. Weckerly, Brian Dennis, Tom Polacheck, J. M. Cushing, Michael Mesterton‐Gibbons, Stefan Baumgärtner, Olli Tahvonen, William J. Reed, André E. Punt and Terrance J. Quinn.

In The Last Decade

Fields of papers published in Natural Resource Modeling

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers published in Natural Resource Modeling. 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 Natural Resource Modeling.

Countries where authors publish in Natural Resource Modeling

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Natural Resource Modeling. 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 Natural Resource Modeling with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Natural Resource Modeling 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