Countries where authors publish in Surgical Innovation
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Surgical Innovation. 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 Surgical Innovation with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Surgical Innovation more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers published in Surgical Innovation. 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 Surgical Innovation.
About Surgical Innovation
The 1.8k papers published in Surgical Innovation in the last decades have received a total of 23.8k indexed citations . Papers published in Surgical Innovation usually cover Surgery (1.1k papers), Gastroenterology (112 papers), Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine (303 papers), Emergency Medicine (78 papers) and Oncology (191 papers) specifically the topics of Surgical Simulation and Training (263 papers), Minimally Invasive Surgical Techniques (207 papers), Hernia repair and management (125 papers), Colorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments (111 papers), Anatomy and Medical Technology (104 papers), Gallbladder and Bile Duct Disorders (94 papers), Esophageal and GI Pathology (82 papers) and Cardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes (81 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Surgical Innovation are B. Todd Heniford, E. Matt Ritter, Daniel J. Scott, Kent W. Kercher, A. Cuschieri, David R. Urbach, William S. Cobb, B. Todd Heniford, Lee L. Swanström and Michael J. Rosen.
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.