Countries where authors publish in AIMS Microbiology
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in AIMS Microbiology. 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 published in AIMS Microbiology with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites AIMS Microbiology more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers published in AIMS Microbiology. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers published in AIMS Microbiology.
About AIMS Microbiology
The 381 papers published in AIMS Microbiology in the last decades have received a total of 10.2k indexed citations . Papers published in AIMS Microbiology usually cover Endocrinology (34 papers), Molecular Medicine (30 papers), Biotechnology (43 papers), Food Science (80 papers) and Infectious Diseases (55 papers) specifically the topics of Probiotics and Fermented Foods (46 papers), Bacterial biofilms and quorum sensing (38 papers), Antibiotic Resistance in Bacteria (30 papers), Gut microbiota and health (29 papers), Legume Nitrogen Fixing Symbiosis (22 papers), Microbial Community Ecology and Physiology (21 papers), Bacteriophages and microbial interactions (20 papers) and Plant-Microbe Interactions and Immunity (18 papers). The most active scholars publishing in AIMS Microbiology are Wanda C. Reygaert, Τhomas Bintsis, Patrick Di Martino, Boris Georgievich Andryukov, Jack C. Leo, Andrew S. Ball, Constance J. Jeffery, Eman Koshlaf, Stephen T. Abedon and Efstathios Hatziloukas.
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.