Countries where authors publish in Orthopaedic Surgery
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Orthopaedic 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 Orthopaedic Surgery with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Orthopaedic Surgery more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers published in Orthopaedic 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 Orthopaedic Surgery.
About Orthopaedic Surgery
The 2.4k papers published in Orthopaedic Surgery in the last decades have received a total of 20.0k indexed citations . Papers published in Orthopaedic Surgery usually cover Surgery (2.0k papers), Orthopedics and Sports Medicine (372 papers), Pathology and Forensic Medicine (630 papers), Rheumatology (250 papers) and Rehabilitation (110 papers) specifically the topics of Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology (602 papers), Spinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques (516 papers), Orthopaedic implants and arthroplasty (453 papers), Total Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes (399 papers), Orthopedic Infections and Treatments (292 papers), Pelvic and Acetabular Injuries (240 papers), Hip and Femur Fractures (234 papers) and Bone fractures and treatments (228 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Orthopaedic Surgery are Ralph J. Mobbs, Yong‐cheng Hu, Prashanth J. Rao, Jiayong Liu, Dengxing Lun, Kevin Phan, Nabil A. Ebraheim, Yeshuo Ma, William R. Walsh and Yingze Zhang.
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.