This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Neuroethics. 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 Neuroethics with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Neuroethics more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers published in Neuroethics. 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 Neuroethics.
About Neuroethics
The 568 papers published in Neuroethics in the last decades have received a total of 8.8k indexed citations . Papers published in Neuroethics usually cover Cognitive Neuroscience (412 papers), Philosophy (98 papers), Psychiatry and Mental health (87 papers), Clinical Psychology (119 papers) and Neurology (64 papers) specifically the topics of Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations (258 papers), Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment (133 papers), Free Will and Agency (99 papers), Mental Health and Psychiatry (75 papers), Neurological disorders and treatments (52 papers), Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments (47 papers), Traumatic Brain Injury Research (37 papers) and Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints (34 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Neuroethics are Frédéric Gilbert, Éric Racine, Felicitas Kraemer, Julian Savulescu, Françoise Βaylis, Hanna Pickard, Stephen J. Morse, Cordelia Fine, Marc D. Lewis and Maartje Schermer.
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.