Boletin Latinoamericano y del Caribe de plantas Medicinales y Aromaticas
683 papers
receiving
3.6k citations
Peers
Boletin Latinoamericano y del Caribe de plantas Medicinales y Aromaticas
Comparison fields: 5 of 143
Pharmacology635
Food Science1.4k
Biochemistry437
Complementary and alternative medicine466
Plant Science2.0k
Replace Phytomedicine Plus with:
Phytomedicine PlusIndia
Beni-Suef University Journal of Basic and Applied SciencesEgypt
Current Bioactive CompoundsIndia
Records of Natural ProductsChina
International Journal of PhytomedicineIndia
Iranian journal of pharmaceutical researchIran
Bioresources and BioprocessingChina
Acta PharmaceuticaIndia
Toxicological ResearchSouth Korea
Natural Products and BioprospectingChina
Boletin Latinoamericano y del Caribe de plantas Medicinales y Aromaticasrelative toPhytomedicine PlusIndiaPhytomedicine Plus's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×2×3.3×
Phytomedicine Plus · 1×
×0.8635/756PHARM
×1.41k/964FS
×0.8437/551BIOCH
×0.6466/796CAM
×1.42k/1kPS
Citations per year
'16
'17
'18
'19
'20
'21
'22
'23
'24
'25
'26
Countries where authors publish in Boletin Latinoamericano y del Caribe de plantas Medicinales y Aromaticas
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Boletin Latinoamericano y del Caribe de plantas Medicinales y Aromaticas. 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 Boletin Latinoamericano y del Caribe de plantas Medicinales y Aromaticas with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Boletin Latinoamericano y del Caribe de plantas Medicinales y Aromaticas more than expected).
Fields of papers published in Boletin Latinoamericano y del Caribe de plantas Medicinales y Aromaticas
This network shows the impact of papers published in Boletin Latinoamericano y del Caribe de plantas Medicinales y Aromaticas. 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 Boletin Latinoamericano y del Caribe de plantas Medicinales y Aromaticas.
About Boletin Latinoamericano y del Caribe de plantas Medicinales y Aromaticas
The 800 papers published in Boletin Latinoamericano y del Caribe de plantas Medicinales y Aromaticas in the last decades have received a total of 4.0k indexed citations . Papers published in Boletin Latinoamericano y del Caribe de plantas Medicinales y Aromaticas usually cover Pharmacology (152 papers), Food Science (269 papers), Complementary and alternative medicine (100 papers), Biochemistry (74 papers) and Plant Science (355 papers) specifically the topics of Essential Oils and Antimicrobial Activity (212 papers), Ethnobotanical and Medicinal Plants Studies (109 papers), Psidium guajava Extracts and Applications (89 papers), Phytochemistry Medicinal Plant Applications (77 papers), Phytochemicals and Antioxidant Activities (71 papers), Phytochemistry and Biological Activities (65 papers), Insect Pest Control Strategies (54 papers) and Natural product bioactivities and synthesis (53 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Boletin Latinoamericano y del Caribe de plantas Medicinales y Aromaticas are Ana Haydée Ladio, Abdul Manan Mat Jais, Carolina Fredes, Elsa Rengifo-Salgado, Nilufar Z. Mamadalieva, Gabriel Vargas-Arana, Elena E. Stashenko, Talal A. Zari, Patricia Marta Arenas and Soledad Molares.
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.