Analytical methods validation: Bioavailability, bioequivalence and pharmacokinetic studies
Countries where authors are citing Analytical methods validation: Bioavailability, bioequivalence and pharmacokinetic studies
This map shows the geographic impact of Analytical methods validation: Bioavailability, bioequivalence and pharmacokinetic studies. 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 Analytical methods validation: Bioavailability, bioequivalence and pharmacokinetic studies with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Analytical methods validation: Bioavailability, bioequivalence and pharmacokinetic studies more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Analytical methods validation: Bioavailability, bioequivalence and pharmacokinetic studies
This network shows the impact of Analytical methods validation: Bioavailability, bioequivalence and pharmacokinetic studies. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Analytical methods validation: Bioavailability, bioequivalence and pharmacokinetic studies.
About Analytical methods validation: Bioavailability, bioequivalence and pharmacokinetic studies
This paper, published in 1991, received 556 indexed citations . Written by Vinod P. Shah, K.K. Midha, I.J. McGilveray, Jerome P. Skelly, Avraham Yacobi, Thomas Layloff, C.T. Viswanathan, C. E. Cook and R.D. McDowall. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Molecular Biology (147 citations), Pharmacology (111 citations) and Analytical Chemistry (98 citations). Published in European Journal of Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics.
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/bf03189968.