BMC Bioinformatics

620.4k citations
12.4k papers · · active since 2016

Impact in

    • Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
    • Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
    • Gene expression and cancer classification
    • RNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
    • Machine Learning in Bioinformatics
    • RNA modifications and cancer
    • Protein Structure and Dynamics

Papers in

    • Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks 993
    • Gene expression and cancer classification 928
    • Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies 726
    • Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies 507
    • Machine Learning in Bioinformatics 434
    • Protein Structure and Dynamics 363
    • RNA and protein synthesis mechanisms 298
    • Genetic Associations and Epidemiology 314

BMC Bioinformatics

7.6k papers receiving 388.9k citations

Peers

BMC Bioinformatics
Comparison fields: 5 of 244
  • Molecular Biology 350.1k
  • Cancer Research 36.8k
  • Genetics 62.0k
  • Ecology 48.9k
  • Computational Theory and Mathematics 30.0k
Replace PLoS Computational Biology with:
PLoS Computational Biology United States
Methods in enzymology on CD-ROM/Methods in enzymology United States
Nature Protocols United States
Annual Review of Biochemistry United States
Trends in Biochemical Sciences United States
Nature Structural & Molecular Biology United States
Genome biology United States
Journal of Theoretical Biology United States
PLoS Biology United States
eLife United States
BMC Bioinformatics relative to PLoS Computational Biology United States PLoS Computational Biology's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×1.5×2.1×
PLoS Computational Biology · 1×
Citations per year

Countries where authors publish in BMC Bioinformatics

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of research published in BMC Bioinformatics. 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 BMC Bioinformatics with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites BMC Bioinformatics more than expected).

Fields of papers published in BMC Bioinformatics

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers published in BMC Bioinformatics. 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 BMC Bioinformatics.

About BMC Bioinformatics

The 12.4k papers published in BMC Bioinformatics in the last decades have received a total of 620.4k indexed citations . Papers published in BMC Bioinformatics usually cover Molecular Biology (5.4k papers), Genetics (822 papers), Cancer Research (335 papers), Biophysics (129 papers) and Computational Theory and Mathematics (309 papers) specifically the topics of Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks (993 papers), Gene expression and cancer classification (928 papers), Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies (726 papers), Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies (507 papers), Machine Learning in Bioinformatics (434 papers), Protein Structure and Dynamics (363 papers), Genetic Associations and Epidemiology (314 papers) and RNA and protein synthesis mechanisms (298 papers). The most active scholars publishing in BMC Bioinformatics are Steve Horvath, Peter Langfelder, Bo Li, Colin N. Dewey, Robert Steel Edgar, Yang Zhang, Robert Castelo, Justin Guinney, Sonja Hänzelmann and Thomas Madden.

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 journals with similar magnitude of impact