Amine-Citrate Buffers for pH Control in Starch Gel Electrophoresis
- Authors
- J. W. Clayton
- Journal
- Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada
In The Last Decade
doi.org/10.1139/f72-172 →Countries where authors are citing Amine-Citrate Buffers for pH Control in Starch Gel Electrophoresis
This map shows the geographic impact of Amine-Citrate Buffers for pH Control in Starch Gel Electrophoresis. 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 Amine-Citrate Buffers for pH Control in Starch Gel Electrophoresis with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Amine-Citrate Buffers for pH Control in Starch Gel Electrophoresis more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Amine-Citrate Buffers for pH Control in Starch Gel Electrophoresis
This network shows the impact of Amine-Citrate Buffers for pH Control in Starch Gel Electrophoresis. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Amine-Citrate Buffers for pH Control in Starch Gel Electrophoresis.
About Amine-Citrate Buffers for pH Control in Starch Gel Electrophoresis
This paper, published in 1972, received 939 indexed citations . Written by J. W. Clayton covering the research area of Molecular Biology, Biomedical Engineering and Electrical and Electronic Engineering. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Genetics (544 citations), Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics (291 citations) and Nature and Landscape Conservation (255 citations). Published in Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada.
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/10.1139/f72-172.