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 1.9k papers published in Surgical Innovation in the last decades have received a total of 25.5k indexed citations . Papers published in Surgical Innovation usually cover Surgery (1.1k papers), Gastroenterology (92 papers), Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine (213 papers), Oncology (151 papers) and Hepatology (42 papers) specifically the topics of Minimally Invasive Surgical Techniques (349 papers), Surgical Simulation and Training (271 papers), Colorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments (102 papers), Hernia repair and management (101 papers), Gallbladder and Bile Duct Disorders (72 papers), Gastroesophageal reflux and treatments (64 papers), Medical History and Innovations (59 papers) and Anatomy and Medical Technology (52 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Surgical Innovation are Brant Todd Heniford, E. Matthew Ritter, Daniel J. Scott, Kent Williams Kercher, A. Cuschieri, David Robert Urbach, B. Todd Heniford, William S. Cobb, Adrian Park and Lee L. Swanström.
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.