Biopolymer-Based Hydrogels As Scaffolds for Tissue Engineering Applications: A Review
- Journal
- Biomacromolecules
In The Last Decade
doi.org/10.1021/bm200083n →Countries where authors are citing Biopolymer-Based Hydrogels As Scaffolds for Tissue Engineering Applications: A Review
This map shows the geographic impact of Biopolymer-Based Hydrogels As Scaffolds for Tissue Engineering Applications: A 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 Biopolymer-Based Hydrogels As Scaffolds for Tissue Engineering Applications: A Review with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Biopolymer-Based Hydrogels As Scaffolds for Tissue Engineering Applications: A Review more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Biopolymer-Based Hydrogels As Scaffolds for Tissue Engineering Applications: A Review
This network shows the impact of Biopolymer-Based Hydrogels As Scaffolds for Tissue Engineering Applications: A Review. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Biopolymer-Based Hydrogels As Scaffolds for Tissue Engineering Applications: A Review.
About Biopolymer-Based Hydrogels As Scaffolds for Tissue Engineering Applications: A Review
This paper, published in 2011, received 1.4k indexed citations . Written by Sandra Van Vlierberghe, Peter Dubruel and E. Schacht covering the research area of Biomaterials, Biomedical Engineering and Molecular Medicine. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Biomaterials (717 citations), Biomedical Engineering (675 citations) and Molecular Medicine (603 citations). Published in Biomacromolecules.
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/10.1021/bm200083n.