Forest Products Laboratory

162.0k citations
3.9k papers ·

Impact in

Papers in

Forest Products Laboratory

3.7k papers receiving 156.5k citations

Peers

Forest Products Laboratory
Comparison fields: 5 of 236
  • Biomaterials 37.6k
  • Biotechnology 14.1k
  • Polymers and Plastics 21.2k
  • Building and Construction 18.1k
  • Biomedical Engineering 54.9k
Replace National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research with:
National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research United States
Procter & Gamble (United States) United States
South Dakota State University United States
U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center United States
Southern Regional Research Center United States
Louisiana State University Agricultural Center United States
SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry United States
Southern Research Station United States
Eastern Regional Research Center United States
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Canada
Forest Products Laboratory relative to National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research United States National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×2×4×5.9×
National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research · 1×
Citations per year

Countries citing scholars working at Forest Products Laboratory

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of research produced by authors working at Forest Products Laboratory. 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 papers produced at Forest Products Laboratory with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Forest Products Laboratory more than expected).

Fields of papers published by authors at Forest Products Laboratory

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers affiliated with Forest Products Laboratory at the time of their publication. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers affiliated with Forest Products Laboratory at the time of their publication.

About Forest Products Laboratory

In recent decades, authors affiliated with Forest Products Laboratory have published 3.9k papers, which have received a total of 162.0k indexed citations . Scholars at this organization have produced 803 papers in Building and Construction, 591 papers in Biomaterials, 438 papers in Polymers and Plastics, 222 papers in Biotechnology and 939 papers in Plant Science on the topics of Wood Treatment and Properties (729 papers), Lignin and Wood Chemistry (607 papers), Advanced Cellulose Research Studies (524 papers), Biofuel production and bioconversion (392 papers), Enzyme-mediated dye degradation (330 papers), Natural Fiber Reinforced Composites (282 papers), Plant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases (233 papers) and Tree Root and Stability Studies (215 papers). Their work is cited by papers focused on Biomaterials (37.6k citations), Biotechnology (14.1k citations), Polymers and Plastics (21.2k citations), Building and Construction (18.1k citations) and Biomedical Engineering (54.9k citations). Authors at Forest Products Laboratory collaborate with scholars in United States, China and Canada and have published in prestigious journals including Mycologia, Wood Science and Technology, Journal of Applied Polymer Science, Applied and Environmental Microbiology and Phytochemistry. Some of Forest Products Laboratory's most productive authors include Thomas W. Jeffries, T. Kent Kirk, J. Y. Zhu, Robert J. Moon, Kenneth E. Hammel, Umesh Prasad Agarwal, Roger M. Rowell, Jeffrey P. Youngblood, Nicole M. Stark and Zhiyong Cai.

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.

Explore institutions with similar magnitude of impact