Countries where authors publish in Property Management
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Property Management. 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 Property Management with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Property Management more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers published in Property Management. 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 Property Management.
About Property Management
The 982 papers published in Property Management in the last decades have received a total of 9.9k indexed citations . Papers published in Property Management usually cover Urban Studies (107 papers), Finance (163 papers), Economics and Econometrics (427 papers), Building and Construction (153 papers) and Social Psychology (193 papers) specifically the topics of Housing Market and Economics (375 papers), Facilities and Workplace Management (190 papers), Housing, Finance, and Neoliberalism (124 papers), Sustainable Building Design and Assessment (83 papers), Urban and Rural Development Challenges (75 papers), Construction Project Management and Performance (62 papers), Urban Planning and Valuation (49 papers) and Consumer Retail Behavior Studies (43 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Property Management are David Hillier, Paul Cozens, Joanna Poon, Dilanthi Amaratunga, Sara Wilkinson, Matthew Tucker, Ling Hin Li, Chris Eves, John Ratcliffe and Michael Pitt.
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.