The Botanical Review

About

The 934 papers published in The Botanical Review in the last decades have received a total of 70.8k indexed citations. Papers published in The Botanical Review usually cover Plant Science (497 papers), Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics (434 papers) and Molecular Biology (265 papers) specifically the topics of Plant Diversity and Evolution (223 papers), Plant and animal studies (203 papers) and Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies (106 papers). The most active scholars publishing in The Botanical Review are Ragan M. Callaway, T. T. Kozlowski, George Eiten, Jan‐Peter Müller, Martin Burd, Armen Takhtajan, Steward T. A. Pickett, Peter S. White, Daniel I. Axelrod and Thomas D. Sharkey.

In The Last Decade

The Botanical Review

864 papers receiving 61.2k citations

Fields of papers published in The Botanical Review

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers published in The Botanical Review. 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 The Botanical Review.

Countries where authors publish in The Botanical Review

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of research published in The Botanical Review. 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 The Botanical Review with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites The Botanical Review more than expected).

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.

Explore journals with similar magnitude of impact

Rankless by CCL
2026