Notes and Records the Royal Society Journal of the History of Science

6.3k citations
1.2k papers · · active since 2016

Impact in

Papers in

Notes and Records the Royal Society Journal of the History of Science

813 papers receiving 4.2k citations

Peers

Notes and Records the Royal Society Journal of the History of Science
Comparison fields: 5 of 225
  • History and Philosophy of Science 2.0k
  • Theoretical Computer Science 209
  • Anthropology 816
  • History 753
  • General Psychology 49
Replace Ambix with:
Ambix United Kingdom
Centaurus United States
Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte Germany
Annals of Science United Kingdom
Science & Education United States
Minerva United States
International Studies in Philosophy United States
˜The œreview of metaphysics United States
The British Journal for the History of Science United Kingdom
Journal for General Philosophy of Science Germany
Notes and Records the Royal Society Journal of the History of Science relative to Ambix United Kingdom Ambix's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×2×3.4×
Ambix · 1×
Citations per year

Countries where authors publish in Notes and Records the Royal Society Journal of the History of Science

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Notes and Records the Royal Society Journal of the History of Science. 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 Notes and Records the Royal Society Journal of the History of Science with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Notes and Records the Royal Society Journal of the History of Science more than expected).

Fields of papers published in Notes and Records the Royal Society Journal of the History of Science

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers published in Notes and Records the Royal Society Journal of the History of Science. 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 Notes and Records the Royal Society Journal of the History of Science.

About Notes and Records the Royal Society Journal of the History of Science

The 1.2k papers published in Notes and Records the Royal Society Journal of the History of Science in the last decades have received a total of 6.3k indexed citations . Papers published in Notes and Records the Royal Society Journal of the History of Science usually cover History and Philosophy of Science (510 papers), Theoretical Computer Science (33 papers), Anthropology (149 papers), History (139 papers) and Museology (34 papers) specifically the topics of History of Science and Natural History (224 papers), History of Science and Medicine (180 papers), History and Developments in Astronomy (124 papers), Historical Philosophy and Science (110 papers), Historical and Literary Studies (101 papers), Philosophy and History of Science (76 papers), Medical History and Innovations (67 papers) and Historical Economic and Social Studies (62 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Notes and Records the Royal Society Journal of the History of Science are Howard Gest, Piyo M. Rattansi, James E. Mcguire, John Carew Eccles, John van Wyhe, I. Bernard Cohen, Gerard L'E. Turner, D. T. Whiteside, A. James McQuillan and Roy MacLeod.

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