Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: The case of polymer chemsitry
Abstract
loading...
About
In The Last Decade
doi.org/10.1007/bf02019280 →Countries where authors are citing Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: The case of polymer chemsitry
This map shows the geographic impact of Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: The case of polymer chemsitry. 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 Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: The case of polymer chemsitry with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: The case of polymer chemsitry more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: The case of polymer chemsitry
This network shows the impact of Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: The case of polymer chemsitry. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: The case of polymer chemsitry.
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.
This paper is also available at doi.org/10.1007/bf02019280.