Comparing Bibliometric Analysis Using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Databases
In The Last Decade
doi.org/10.3791/58494 →Countries where authors are citing Comparing Bibliometric Analysis Using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Databases
This map shows the geographic impact of Comparing Bibliometric Analysis Using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Databases. 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 Comparing Bibliometric Analysis Using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Databases with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Comparing Bibliometric Analysis Using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Databases more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Comparing Bibliometric Analysis Using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Databases
This network shows the impact of Comparing Bibliometric Analysis Using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Databases. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Comparing Bibliometric Analysis Using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Databases.
About Comparing Bibliometric Analysis Using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Databases
This paper, published in 2019, received 321 indexed citations . Written by Saif Aldeen AlRyalat, Lna Malkawi and Shaher Momani covering the research area of Molecular Biology. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health (31 citations), Sociology and Political Science (30 citations) and Economics and Econometrics (24 citations). Published in Journal of Visualized Experiments.
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/10.3791/58494.