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 2.5k papers published in Orthopaedic Surgery in the last decades have received a total of 23.6k indexed citations . Papers published in Orthopaedic Surgery usually cover Surgery (1.5k papers), Orthopedics and Sports Medicine (258 papers), Pathology and Forensic Medicine (314 papers), Rheumatology (187 papers) and Epidemiology (259 papers) specifically the topics of Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology (297 papers), Spinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques (216 papers), Bone fractures and treatments (212 papers), Orthopaedic implants and arthroplasty (199 papers), Total Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes (186 papers), Cervical and Thoracic Myelopathy (164 papers), Scoliosis diagnosis and treatment (140 papers) and Foot and Ankle Surgery (131 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Orthopaedic Surgery are Ralph J. Mobbs, Yong‐cheng Hu, Prashanth J. Rao, Dengxing Lun, Jiayong Liu, Nabil A. Ebraheim, Kevin H. Phan, Yeshuo Ma, William Robert Walsh and Matthew Henry Pelletier.
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.