Genomic mapping by fingerprinting random clones: A mathematical analysis
Impact in
- Plant Science 172
Classified as
- Journal
- Genomics
In The Last Decade
doi.org/10.1016/0888-7543(88)90007-9 →Countries where authors are citing Genomic mapping by fingerprinting random clones: A mathematical analysis
This map shows the geographic impact of Genomic mapping by fingerprinting random clones: A mathematical analysis. 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 Genomic mapping by fingerprinting random clones: A mathematical analysis with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Genomic mapping by fingerprinting random clones: A mathematical analysis more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Genomic mapping by fingerprinting random clones: A mathematical analysis
This network shows the impact of Genomic mapping by fingerprinting random clones: A mathematical analysis. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Genomic mapping by fingerprinting random clones: A mathematical analysis.
About Genomic mapping by fingerprinting random clones: A mathematical analysis
This paper, published in 1988, received 713 indexed citations . Written by Eric S. Lander and Michael S. Waterman covering the research area of Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging, Biomedical Engineering and Molecular Biology. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Molecular Biology (499 citations), Plant Science (172 citations), Genetics (164 citations), Ecology (121 citations) and Artificial Intelligence (71 citations). Published in Genomics.
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/10.1016/0888-7543(88)90007-9.