A Critical Assessment of Docking Programs and Scoring Functions
- Journal
- Journal of Medicinal Chemistry
In The Last Decade
doi.org/10.1021/jm050362n →Countries where authors are citing A Critical Assessment of Docking Programs and Scoring Functions
This map shows the geographic impact of A Critical Assessment of Docking Programs and Scoring Functions. 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 A Critical Assessment of Docking Programs and Scoring Functions with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites A Critical Assessment of Docking Programs and Scoring Functions more than expected).
Fields of papers citing A Critical Assessment of Docking Programs and Scoring Functions
This network shows the impact of A Critical Assessment of Docking Programs and Scoring Functions. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the A Critical Assessment of Docking Programs and Scoring Functions.
About A Critical Assessment of Docking Programs and Scoring Functions
This paper, published in 2005, received 1.3k indexed citations . Written by Gregory L. Warren, C. Webster Andrews, Brian Clarke, Judith M. LaLonde, Millard H. Lambert, Mika Lindvall, Neysa Nevins, Simon F. Semus, Stefan Senger and Giovanna Tedesco covering the research area of Molecular Biology and Computational Theory and Mathematics. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Molecular Biology (926 citations), Computational Theory and Mathematics (861 citations) and Organic Chemistry (247 citations). Published in Journal of Medicinal Chemistry.
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/jm050362n.