Applied Biochemistry and Microbiology
Are you a researcher?
Create a profile to get free access to personal recommendations for colleagues and new articles.
SCImago
Q3
WOS
Q4
Impact factor
1
SJR
0.244
CiteScore
1.7
Categories
Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology
Biochemistry
Areas
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
Immunology and Microbiology
Years of issue
1970, 1972-1980, 1987, 1996-2025
journal names
Applied Biochemistry and Microbiology
APPL BIOCHEM MICRO+
Top-3 citing journals

Applied Biochemistry and Microbiology
(1170 citations)

International Journal of Biological Macromolecules
(304 citations)

Microbiology
(280 citations)
Top-3 organizations

Bach Institute of Biochemistry of the Russian Academy of Sciences
(427 publications)

Lomonosov Moscow State University
(316 publications)


Lomonosov Moscow State University
(77 publications)

Bach Institute of Biochemistry of the Russian Academy of Sciences
(59 publications)
Most cited in 5 years
Found
Publications found: 947
Q1

Psychometric assessment of the Moroccan version of the car, relax, alone, forget, friends, trouble (CRAFFT) scale among adolescent and young adults with a substance use disorder
El Malki H., El-Ammari A., Moutawakkil S.G., Elgnaoui S., Houari F.E., Rhazi K.E., Zarrouq B.
Q1
Addiction science & clinical practice
,
2025
,
citations by CoLab: 0
,

Open Access
,
PDF
|
Abstract
Abstract
Background
The Car, Relax, Alone, Forget, Friends, Trouble (CRAFFT) scale is a widely used screening tool for early identification of alcohol and other drug use, and assessing the risk of substance use disorders in adolescents and young adults. Despite its broad use, translation into several languages, and validation in various settings, no study has yet confirmed the psychometric properties of a Moroccan version. The present research aims to adapt and validate the Moroccan Arabic dialect version of the CRAFFT scale among adolescents and young adults with alcohol and drug use disorder.
Methods
A total of 302 adolescents and young adults (mean age = 18.36 ± 2.36), including 161 males and 41 females, were recruited from a substance use treatment center in Fez City. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was used to assess the factorial structure and model fit, while internal consistency was evaluated using the Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 (KR-20). Convergent validity was examined using gold standard measures, including the International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) and the Hooked-on Nicotine Checklist (HONC). All statistical analyses were performed using JASP software (version 0.17).
Results
CFA revealed a one-factor structure with a good overall fit (χ²/df = 1.91, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.06, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) = 0.03, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.98, Normed Fit Index (NFI) = 0.97. The model had strong reliability with a KR-20 coefficient of 0.80. Convergent validity was confirmed by a high and significant correlation with the MINI gold standard (r = 0.82, p < 0.001), while a low correlation with the HONC gold standard (r = 0.20, p < 0.001) confirmed the scale’s convergent validity. A cutoff score of 4 or higher on the CRAFFT was identified as optimal for balancing sensitivity (78.35%) and specificity (91.67%), achieving a Youden index of 0.70.
Conclusion
The psychometric properties of the Moroccan version of the CRAFFT confirm that it is a valid tool for screening the early detection of alcohol and drug use and for assessing the risk of substance use disorders in adolescents and young adults.
Q1

Organizational perspectives on the impacts of scaling up overdose education and naloxone distribution in Kentucky
Knudsen H.K., Back-Haddix S., Andrews-Higgins S., Goetz M., Davis O.A., Oyler D.R., Walsh S.L., Freeman P.R.
Q1
Addiction science & clinical practice
,
2025
,
citations by CoLab: 0
,

Open Access
,
PDF
|
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Efforts to scale up overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND), an evidence-based practice for reducing opioid overdose mortality, was a major focus of the HEALing Communities Study (HCS). The aim of this analysis is to describe the qualitative perspectives of partner organizations regarding the impacts of implementing OEND in a state that used a naloxone “hub with many spokes” model for scaling up this strategy.
Methods
Small group (n = 20) and individual (n = 24) qualitative interviews were conducted with staff from 44 agencies in eight Kentucky counties that implemented OEND from April 2020 to June 2022. Interviews were conducted between 6 and 8 months after the end of the intervention. Initial deductive coding used the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance (RE-AIM) framework, and then additional inductive sub-coding focused on passages within the OEND Effectiveness code. Thematic analysis was then utilized to identify themes regarding the impacts of implementing OEND.
Results
Participants identified multi-level impacts of implementing OEND. At the individual-level, participants described lives being saved, greater access to naloxone for individuals served by the agency, reduced stigma toward OEND by clients, and greater client-level self-efficacy to respond to overdoses. Organizational impacts included improved staff readiness for overdose response, enhanced clinical relationships between staff and clients, and reduced staff stigma. Participants described positive impacts on their organizational networks and clients’ social networks. Community-level impacts included greater overall access and reduced stigma toward OEND.
Conclusions
These qualitative data revealed that staff from agencies involved in a community-wide effort to scale up OEND perceived multi-level benefits, including saving lives, reducing stigma, improving naloxone access, and enhancing staff and client readiness, while strengthening organizational and community networks.
Trial registration
ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04111939. Registered 30 September 2019, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04111939
Q1

What smartphone apps exist to support recovery from opioid use disorder? A content analysis of publicly available opioid-related smartphone apps
Williamson A., Heydarshahi B., Finley-Abboud D., Massac L., Jacobson L., Christophe N., Joseph J., Futter A., Hoeppner S.S., Hoeppner B.B.
Q1
Addiction science & clinical practice
,
2025
,
citations by CoLab: 0
,

Open Access
,
PDF
|
Abstract
Abstract
Background
An estimated 84,181 people died due to opioid overdose in 2022 alone [1]. Mobile technologies may offer an additional pathway to provide support to people seeking recovery from opioid use disorder (OUD). To this end, we conducted a content analysis of opioid-related apps to determine to what extent apps exist that provide support to people seeking or in recovery from OUD. For apps specifically targeting OUD recovery, we identified the tools these apps offer to users seeking support in their recovery.
Methods
Our team conducted a content analysis of publicly available opioid-related apps identified via web-scraping in the Apple and Google app stores. Using a two-step qualitative coding process, we first identified which apps were meaningfully related to OUD recovery and second identified what tools, if any, these apps provided.
Results
Web-scraping identified 1,136 apps from the Apple App Store (n = 247) and Google Play (n = 889). Of those, 290 apps were specific to OUD recovery (65% of iOS apps, 35% of Android apps). Of those, 161 apps were included in our final analysis. The most common type of tools provided support for motivation (65.2%) and accountability (65.8%). Many apps (53%) also supported linkage to recovery support (e.g., meeting finder, telehealth). Surprisingly, fewer apps provided information about OUD recovery (43.5%) or tools for cravings (33.5%). 42.9% of apps had limited accessibility (e.g., paywalls, private invite).
Conclusions
Our results show a substantial increase in the number of apps designed to support OUD recovery. Nevertheless, there remains a need for apps that provide empirically supported information and tools. Furthermore, restrictions in accessibility (i.e., findability, cost, private) may limit the impact of available apps.
Q1

Lessons from the National institutes of health innovation corps program: defining barriers to developing and commercializing novel solutions for persons with opioid use disorder
Heshmatipour M.P., Duvernay T.M., Hite D.Z., Versi E., Hite M.P., Reeser D.F., Prikhodko V., Nelson A.M., Julian B., Greenberg M.L.
Q1
Addiction science & clinical practice
,
2025
,
citations by CoLab: 0
,

Open Access
,
PDF
|
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Translating innovative research advancements into commercially viable medical interventions presents well-known challenges. However, there is limited understanding of how specific patient, clinical, social, and legal complexities have further complicated and delayed the development of new and effective interventions for Opioid Use Disorder (OUD). We present the following case studies to provide introductory clinical, social, and business insights for researchers, medical professionals, and entrepreneurs who are considering or are currently developing medical.
Methods
Four small business recipients of National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) small business grant funding collected a total of 416 customer discovery interviews during the 2021 National Institutes of Health (NIH) Innovation-Corps (I-Corps) program. Each business received funding to advance an OUD-specific innovation: therapeutics (2 companies), medical device (1 company), and Software as a Medical Device (SaMD) (1 company). Interview participants included stakeholders from a variety of disciplines of Substance Use Disorders (SUD) healthcare including clinicians, first responders, policymakers, relevant manufacturers, business partners, advocacy groups, regulatory agencies, and insurance companies.
Results
Agnostic to the type of product (therapeutic, device, or SaMD), several shared barriers were identified: (1) There is a lack of standardization across medical providers for managing patients with OUD, resulting in diverse implementation practices due to a fragmented healthcare policy; (2) Underlying Social Determinants of Health (SDOH) present unique challenges to medical care and contribute to poor outcomes in OUD; (3) Stigma thwarts adoption, implementation, and the development of innovative solutions; (4) Constantly evolving public health trends and legal policies impact development and access to OUD interventions.
Conclusion
It is critical for innovators to have early interactions with the full range of OUD stakeholders to identify and quantify true unmet needs and to properly position development programs for commercial success. The NIH I-Corps program provides a framework to educate researchers to support their product design and development plans to increase the probability of a commercially successful outcome to address the ongoing opioid epidemic.
Q1

Correction: Buprenorphine and postpartum contraception utilization among people with opioid use disorder: a multi-state analysis
Xu K.Y., Bello J.K., Buss J., Jones H.E., Bierut L.J., Stwalley D., Szlyk H.S., Martin C.E., Kelly J.C., Carter E.B., Krans E.E., Grucza R.A.
Q1

“It’s within your own power”: shared decision-making to support transitions to buprenorphine
Williams B.E., Martin S.A., Hoffman K.A., Andrus M.D., Dellabough-Gormley E., Buchheit B.M.
Q1
Addiction science & clinical practice
,
2025
,
citations by CoLab: 0
,

Open Access
,
PDF
|
Abstract
Abstract
Introduction
Buprenorphine is an effective first-line treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) that substantially reduces morbidity and mortality. For patients using illicitly-manufactured fentanyl (IMF), however, transitioning to buprenorphine can be challenging. Evidence is lacking for how best to make this transition in the outpatient setting. A shared decision-making (SDM) approach has been found to benefit patients with OUD but has not been studied for buprenorphine initiation. We sought to explore participants’ experiences with a SDM approach to buprenorphine initiation.
Methods
Participants were seeking care at a low barrier, telehealth buprenorphine clinic. Clinicians implemented a standardized SDM approach whereby they offered patients using IMF three options for buprenorphine initiation (traditional, low-dose, and QuickStart). They elicited patient goals and preferences and discussed the pros and cons of each method to come to a shared decision. Patients meeting study criteria were invited to participate in semi-structured qualitative interviews 1–2 weeks after the initial visit. Interviews focused on experiences with the clinical visit, suggestions for enhancing the treatment experience, and patient factors affecting the method they chose. Interviews were coded and analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis.
Results
Twenty participants completed interviews. Participants’ mean age was 33, they were 50% female, predominantly white (16 [80%]), and most had Medicaid insurance (19 [95%]). We identified three important themes. First, participants found SDM acceptable and a positive addition to their OUD treatment. They felt their opinion mattered and reported that SDM gave them important control over their care plan. Second, patient goals, preferences, and past experiences with buprenorphine-associated withdrawal impacted what type of buprenorphine initiation method they chose. Finally, participants had advice for clinicians to improve SDM counseling. Participant recommendations included ensuring patients are informed that withdrawal (or “feeling sick”) can occur with any initiation method, that buprenorphine will eventually “block” fentanyl effects once at a high enough dose, and that clinicians provide specific advice for tapering off fentanyl during a low dose initiation.
Conclusions
For patients with OUD using IMF, shared decision-making is an acceptable approach to buprenorphine initiation in the outpatient setting. It can enhance patient autonomy and lead to an individualized approach to OUD care.
Q1

An investigation of drug use among first-time arrestees from 25 county jails across the United States in 2023
Schumacher J.E., Ahsan A., Simpler A.H., Natoli A.P., Cain B.J.
Q1
Addiction science & clinical practice
,
2025
,
citations by CoLab: 0
,

Open Access
,
PDF
|
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Conducting research within a carceral health care context offers a unique view into the nature of drug use among arrestees with potential to identify and prevent drug use consequences. The purpose of this study was to characterize the nature and extent of drug use among first-time jail arrestees to inform detection and treatment.
Methods
This study utilized a naturalistic research design to collect de-identified urine drug screens (UDS), jail characteristics, and arrestee demographic variables among arrestees indicating drug use from 25 jails across the United States in 2023 through a confidential data sharing agreement with NaphCare, Inc. using its proprietary electronic health record operating system. Descriptive statistics were used to detail the features of the dataset, Pearson’s chi-square tests of independence were performed to statistically analyze associations between UDS results and jail characteristics and arrestee demographics, and significant chi-square test results were further investigated by examining standardized residuals to clarify the nature and significance of within-group differences in proportions.
Results
Of the 43,553 UDS cases comprising the final sample (28.8% of total arrestees), 74.8% (32,561) were positive for one or more drugs, and 25.2% of UDS cases were negative for all drugs. Among those who tested positive, 69.0% were positive for cannabis, 54.8% for stimulants, 29.6% for opioids, and 12.4% for sedatives. Arrestees were positive for multiple drugs half the time, with combinations of cannabis, stimulants, and opioids most common. Significant associations between drug use and both jail characteristics and arrestee demographics were found.
Conclusions
Though drug use is not a recent phenomenon, the lethality potential of the drugs being used today is relatively new. Arrestees with positive urine drug screens are at heightened risk of adverse outcome due to sudden cessation of substance use. Findings highlight the need for objective clinical data to guide acute treatment of individuals at risk of withdrawing while detained.
Q1

Patient and clinician experiences with the implementation of telemedicine and related adaptations in office-based buprenorphine treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study
Davoust M., Bazzi A.R., Blakemore S., Blodgett J., Cheng A., Fielman S., Magane K.M., Theisen J., Saitz R., Ventura A.S., Weinstein Z.M.
Q1
Addiction science & clinical practice
,
2025
,
citations by CoLab: 0
,

Open Access
,
PDF
|
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Deaths from opioid overdose have increased dramatically in the past decade. For individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD), agonist medications such as methadone and buprenorphine reduce opioid-related morbidity and mortality. Historically, the provision of buprenorphine treatment in office-based settings has relied on frequent in-person contact, likely influencing patients’ access to and retention in care. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, providers of office-based buprenorphine treatment rapidly adapted their care processes, increasingly relying on telemedicine visits. To date, relatively few prior studies have combined patient and clinician perspectives to examine the implementation of telemedicine and related care adaptations, particularly in safety-net settings.
Methods
Qualitative methods were used to explore clinician and patient experiences with telemedicine in an office-based buprenorphine treatment clinic affiliated with an urban safety-net hospital. From this clinic, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 25 patients and 16 clinicians (including prescribers and non-prescribers). We coded all interview data and used a thematic analysis approach to understand how telemedicine impacted treatment quality and engagement in care, as well as preferences for using telemedicine moving forward.
Results
Five themes regarding the implementation of telemedicine and other COVID-19-related care adaptations arose from patient and clinician perspectives: (1) telemedicine integration precipitated openness to more flexibility in care practices, (2) concerns regarding telemedicine-related adaptations centered around safety and accountability, (3) telemedicine encounters required rapport and trust between patients and clinicians to facilitate open communication, (4) safety-net patient populations experienced unique challenges when using telemedicine, particularly in terms of the technology required and the need for privacy, and (5) there is an important role for telemedicine in office-based buprenorphine treatment moving forward, primarily through its use in hybrid models of care which integrate both in-person and virtual visits.
Conclusions
Telemedicine implementation within office-based buprenorphine treatment has the potential to improve patients’ engagement in care; however, our findings emphasize the need for tailored approaches to implementing telemedicine in office-based buprenorphine treatment, particularly within safety-net settings. Overall, this study supports the maintenance of changes to policy and practice that facilitate the use of telemedicine in office-based buprenorphine treatment beyond the COVID-19 public health emergency.
Q1

Is it about substituting an addiction with another? development and initial psychometric properties of the first heated tobacco products addiction questionnaire (HeaTPAQ)
Fekih-Romdhane F., Hallit R., Malaeb D., Sakr F., Dabbous M., Obeid S., Hallit S.
Q1
Addiction science & clinical practice
,
2025
,
citations by CoLab: 0
,

Open Access
,
PDF
|
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Public health experts currently agree that heated tobacco products (HTPs) pose a significant health risk for their consumers. The same concentrations and speed of delivery of nicotine found for HTPs and conventional combustion cigarettes make it necessary to consider the addictiveness of HTPs, and provide precise diagnostic instruments to serve as the basis for effective treatment plans. Therefore, the main objectives of this study were to design a questionnaire for HTPs addiction called “Heated Tobacco Products Addiction Questionnaire (HeaTPAQ)” and to examine its psychometric properties.
Methods
Adults from the general population of Lebanon (n = 754) were administered the HeatPAQ, along with the Fagerström test for nicotine dependence (FTND), the Caffeine Use Disorder Questionnaire, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item, and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. We split the main sample into two subsamples; subsample 1 consisting of 33% of the participants used for the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) (n = 246; mean age 27.82 ± 9.38 years) and subsample 2 consisting of 67% of the participants used for the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) (n = 508; mean age 27.81 ± 8.80 years).
Results
EFA then CFA analyses revealed a one-factor model consisting of 13 items with acceptable fit to the data. The HeaTPAQ reached excellent internal consistency coefficients, with both Cronbach’s α and McDonald’s ω values of 0.96. The one-dimensional structure of the HeaTPAQ was found to be invariant across sex groups. Convergent validity was demonstrated through significant positive correlation with FTND scores. Furthermore, HeaTPAQ scores correlated positively with measures of caffeine addiction, anxiety and depression, which suggests the adequate concurrent validity of the scale.
Conclusion
Findings suggest that the HeatPAQ is a specific, short and simple-to-use self-report questionnaire to assess HTPs addiction reliably and validly. Pending future studies confirming our results, we hope that the HeatPAQ will facilitate routine screening for HTPs addiction, which is an essential step towards appropriate prevention and intervention efforts and to inform policy makers.
Q1

Initiating buprenorphine to treat opioid use disorder without prerequisite withdrawal: an updated systematic review
Adams K.K., Waters K., Sobieraj D.M.
Q1
Addiction science & clinical practice
,
2025
,
citations by CoLab: 0
,

Open Access
,
PDF
|
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Withdrawal prior to buprenorphine initiation may be intolerable or create barriers to therapy. We aim to update our previous systematic review on the efficacy and safety of buprenorphine initiation strategies that aim to omit prerequisite opioid withdrawal (POW).
Methods
We used the same search strategy for this update as in the original review with the modification of an additional term “low dose.” We searched Embase and Scopus from April 11, 2020 to August 1, 2024 with searches in Google Scholar and www.clinicaltrials.gov. A study was included if it described patients with opioid use disorder or chronic pain that transitioned from a full mu-opioid agonist to buprenorphine without preceding withdrawal and reported withdrawal during initiation as an outcome. Two investigators independently screened citations and articles for inclusion, collected data using a standardized data collection tool, and assessed study risk of bias.
Results
Forty-four articles met our inclusion criteria; 31 were case reports/series reporting 84 cases and 13 were single-arm observational studies reporting a total of 576 cases. These studies were added to the literature from our original systematic review, totaling 59 studies and 682 patients. Sublingual buprenorphine was the most common initial formulation, comprising 55% (376/682) of cases. In case reports/series, use of a validated scale to measure withdrawal was uncommon; validated scales were only used in 36% of patients. All other patients had withdrawal assessed in a manner not utilizing a validated scale. Approximately half of these patients experienced any level of withdrawal (57/106 = 54%). The specific outcome of “any level of withdrawal” was not consistently reported in single-arm observational studies. Eight studies reported on any level of withdrawal, which occurred in 41% (177/428) of initiation attempts; some patients experienced more than one initiation attempt. Thirteen patients in case reports/series and 37 patients in the single-arm observational studies reported clinically significant withdrawal (50/682 = 7%). 81% (451/555) of patients transitioned to buprenorphine.
Conclusion
The prevalence of buprenorphine dosing strategies that aim to omit POW has vastly increased over the past 4 years. While quality of evidence remains low, the increased quantity of publications and integration into health-system guidelines and protocols demonstrates the need for prospective, controlled studies. It is unknown how selection bias impacts current findings, further highlighting the need for prospective, randomized, controlled trials evaluating these dosing strategies.
Q1

“We need all hands on deck”: characterizing addiction medicine training in Canada—a mixed methods study of fellowship program directors
Lu C., Chan K., Martin L., Fairbairn N.
Q1
Addiction science & clinical practice
,
2025
,
citations by CoLab: 0
,

Open Access
,
PDF
|
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Addiction Medicine training in Canada has evolved substantially in the last few years with the establishment of accreditation standards and several new fellowship programs. The novelty of these formal training programs, created in response to complex and ever-expanding clinical needs in Addiction Medicine, creates unique educational circumstances that must be understood to support future growth. This study characterizes the current state of these postgraduate training programs in Canada through the perspectives of Program Directors (PDs).
Methods
This study is a mixed methods study of 12 PDs. In Phase 1, participants completed a quantitative survey analyzed through descriptive statistics. In Phase 2, participants underwent a qualitative semi-structured interview that was coded with a thematic analysis approach. Mixing occurred both during the interim analysis between phases and during the interpretation stage.
Results
28 trainees enrolled in a fellowship program in 2021–22 across 10 programs, and 27 trainees enrolled in 2022–23 across 11 programs. In each year, there were significantly fewer available spots than applications (31% and 29%, respectively). PDs identified a funding “bottleneck” as the most difficult and important challenge facing programs, with trainees supported by diverse and unstable funding sources. Qualitative analysis highlighted the need for sustainable funding models, flexibility toward alternative training pathways (shorter durations of training and re-entry from practice), and establishment of a national community of practice to support the co-creation of a robust addictions medical education infrastructure.
Conclusion
For Addiction Medicine training to meet workforce demands, PDs stressed that funding was the challenge of prime importance. Future studies should examine the perspectives of Addiction Medicine fellows, the clinical and research impacts of fellowship graduates, and the cost-effectiveness of fellowship funding models.
Q1

Individual differences in treatment effects of internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy in primary care: a moderation analysis of a randomized clinical trial
Hyland K., Romero D., Andreasson S., Hammarberg A., Hedman-Lagerlöf E., Johansson M.
Q1
Addiction science & clinical practice
,
2025
,
citations by CoLab: 0
,

Open Access
,
PDF
|
Abstract
Abstract
Background and aims
Little is known regarding predictors of outcome in treatment of alcohol dependence via the internet and in primary care. The aim of the present study was to investigate the role of socio-demographic and clinical factors for outcomes in internet-based cognitive behavioral treatment (ICBT) added to treatment as usual (TAU) for alcohol dependence in primary care.
Design
Secondary analyses based on data from a randomized controlled trial in which participants were randomized to ICBT + TAU or to TAU only.
Setting
The study was conducted in collaboration with 14 primary care centers in Stockholm, Sweden.
Participants
The randomized trial included 264 adult primary care patients with alcohol dependence enrolled between September 2017 and November 2019.
Interventions
Patients in the parent trial were randomized to ICBT that was added to TAU (n = 132) or to TAU only (n = 132). ICBT was a 12-week intervention based on motivational interviewing, relapse prevention and behavioral self-control training.
Measures
Primary outcome was number of standard drinks last 30 days. Sociodemographic and clinical predictors were tested in separate models using linear mixed effects models.
Findings
Severity of dependence, assessed by ICD-10 criteria for alcohol dependence, was the only predictor for changes in alcohol consumption and the only moderator of the effect of treatment. Participants with severe dependence showed a larger reduction in alcohol consumption between baseline and 3-months follow-up compared to participants with moderate dependence. The patients with moderate dependence continued to reduce their alcohol consumption between 3- and 12-months follow-up, while patients with severe dependence did not.
Conclusions
Dependence severity predicted changes in alcohol consumption following treatment of alcohol dependence in primary care, with or without added ICBT. Dependence severity was also found to moderate the effect of treatment. The results suggest that treatment for both moderate and severe alcohol dependence is viable in primary care.
Clinical trial registration: The study was approved by the Regional Ethics Board in Stockholm, no. 2016/1367–31/2. The study protocol was published in Trials 30 December 2019. The trial identifier is ISRCTN69957414, available at http://www.isrctn.com, assigned 7 June 2018, retrospectively registered.
Q1

Patient characteristics associated with their level of twelve-step attendance prior to entry into treatment for substance use disorders
Galanter M., White W.L., Dennis M.L., Hunter B., Passetti L., Lustig D.
Q1
Addiction science & clinical practice
,
2025
,
citations by CoLab: 0
,

Open Access
,
PDF
|
Abstract
Abstract
Background
The availability of the fellowships of Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous in community settings is extensive and patients admitted to treatment programs for substance use disorder may therefore have previously attended meetings of these two Twelve Step (TS) programs. Data on such prior attendance and related clinical findings, however, are not typically available. They can, however, be relevant to how ensuing treatment is planned. We therefore undertook this study to ascertain the feasibility of evaluating how the level of TS attendance prior to treatment entry can be evaluated, and to determine clinically relevant findings that are associated with such attendance.
Methods
Over the course of 2022, 3,125 patients were admitted to a large urban multimodal United States-based treatment center. All patients were administered the structured interview-based Global Appraisal of Individual Needs upon admission. This instrument is employed to evaluate substance use, demographics, and related psychosocial variables. Clinically related variables were analyzed relative to whether given respondents have a history of any TS group attendance prior to admission.
Results
Distinctions were found between the 57.3% of respondents who had previously attended any TS meetings and the 42.6% who had not attended any meetings. Compared to respondents who had never attended TS meetings, those who had ever attended scored higher on emotional problems (p <.001, d = -0.58), and had more likely undergone previous SUD treatment (p <.001, d = 0.80). They were less likely to use substances in unsafe situations (p <.001, d = -0.55) and were less likely to express reluctance to remain abstinent (p <.001, d = -0.50). The 11% of respondents who considered themselves regular TS members reported a lower frequency of recent substance use (p <.001, d = -0.80) and were more likely to have attended intensive outpatient (p <.001, 0.46) and residential (p <.001, 0.44) treatment than patients who did not consider themselves regular attenders.
Conclusions
Examination of TS attendance prior to treatment admission is feasible. Findings can be clinically relevant for differential treatment planning and can also serve as a basis for further research into the role of TS participation in community settings.
Q1

A stakeholder-driven approach to designing a peer recovery coach role for implementation in community-oriented primary care teams in South Africa
Myers B., Regenauer K.S., Johnson K., Brown I., Rose A.L., Ciya N., Ndamase S., Jacobs Y., Anvari M.S., Hines A., Dean D., Baskar R., Magidson J.F.
Q1
Addiction science & clinical practice
,
2025
,
citations by CoLab: 1
,

Open Access
,
PDF
|
Abstract
Abstract
Introduction
In South Africa, community-oriented primary care teams work to re-engage out-of-care people with HIV (PWH) in treatment, many of whom have substance use (SU) concerns. SU stigma is high among these teams, limiting care engagement efforts. Integrating peer recovery coaches into community-oriented primary care teams could shift SU stigma and improve patients’ engagement in care. The peer role does not exist in SA and represents a workforce innovation. To enhance acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness for the local context, we engaged multiple stakeholder groups to co-design a peer role for community-oriented primary care team integration.
Methods
We used a five-step human-centered design process: (i) semi-structured interviews with healthcare worker (n = 25) and patient (n = 15) stakeholders to identify priorities for the role; (ii) development of an initial role overview; (iii) six ideation workshops with healthcare worker (n = 12) and patient (n = 12) stakeholders to adapt this overview; (iv) refinement of the role prototype via four co-design workshops with healthcare worker (n = 7) and patient (n = 9) stakeholders; and (v) consultation with HIV and SU service leaders to assess the acceptability and feasibility of integrating this prototype into community-oriented primary care teams.
Results
Although all stakeholders viewed the peer role as acceptable, patients and healthcare worker identified different priorities. Patients prioritized the care experience through sharing of lived experience and confidential SU support. Healthcare worker prioritized clarification of the peer role, working conditions, and processes to limit any impact on the community-oriented primary care team. A personal history of SU, minimum 1 year in SU recovery, and strong community knowledge were considered role prerequisites by all stakeholders. Through the iterative process, stakeholders clarified their preferences for peer session structure, location, and content and expanded proposed components of peer training to include therapeutic and professional work practice competencies. Service leaders endorsed the prototype after the addition of peer integration training for community-oriented primary care teams and peer mentoring to address community and team dynamics.
Conclusion
Stakeholder engagement in an iterative design process has been integral to co-designing a peer role that multiple stakeholder groups consider acceptable and that community-oriented primary care teams are willing to implement. This offers a methodological framework for other teams designing SU workforce innovations.
Top-100
Citing journals
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
|
|
Applied Biochemistry and Microbiology
1170 citations, 5.06%
|
|
International Journal of Biological Macromolecules
304 citations, 1.31%
|
|
Microbiology
280 citations, 1.21%
|
|
Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology
266 citations, 1.15%
|
|
Molecules
246 citations, 1.06%
|
|
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
244 citations, 1.05%
|
|
Frontiers in Microbiology
221 citations, 0.96%
|
|
Bioresource Technology
190 citations, 0.82%
|
|
Carbohydrate Polymers
172 citations, 0.74%
|
|
Microorganisms
171 citations, 0.74%
|
|
PLoS ONE
146 citations, 0.63%
|
|
World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology
144 citations, 0.62%
|
|
Polymers
141 citations, 0.61%
|
|
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
140 citations, 0.61%
|
|
Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology
137 citations, 0.59%
|
|
Food Chemistry
135 citations, 0.58%
|
|
Scientific Reports
131 citations, 0.57%
|
|
Plants
127 citations, 0.55%
|
|
Frontiers in Plant Science
118 citations, 0.51%
|
|
Journal of Fungi
116 citations, 0.5%
|
|
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
112 citations, 0.48%
|
|
Process Biochemistry
109 citations, 0.47%
|
|
Russian Journal of Plant Physiology
106 citations, 0.46%
|
|
Foods
99 citations, 0.43%
|
|
Science of the Total Environment
98 citations, 0.42%
|
|
Chemosphere
97 citations, 0.42%
|
|
IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science
95 citations, 0.41%
|
|
Biotechnology Advances
85 citations, 0.37%
|
|
Biocatalysis and Agricultural Biotechnology
84 citations, 0.36%
|
|
Journal of Hazardous Materials
84 citations, 0.36%
|
|
Biochemical Engineering Journal
83 citations, 0.36%
|
|
Fermentation
79 citations, 0.34%
|
|
Marine Drugs
79 citations, 0.34%
|
|
Biotekhnologiya
77 citations, 0.33%
|
|
Agronomy
77 citations, 0.33%
|
|
Biology Bulletin
75 citations, 0.32%
|
|
Journal of Biotechnology
71 citations, 0.31%
|
|
Enzyme and Microbial Technology
69 citations, 0.3%
|
|
Applied Sciences (Switzerland)
68 citations, 0.29%
|
|
LWT - Food Science and Technology
64 citations, 0.28%
|
|
3 Biotech
64 citations, 0.28%
|
|
Applied and Environmental Microbiology
62 citations, 0.27%
|
|
Biochemistry (Moscow)
59 citations, 0.25%
|
|
Archives of Microbiology
59 citations, 0.25%
|
|
RSC Advances
55 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Chemistry of Natural Compounds
55 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Journal of Applied Microbiology
55 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Journal of Applied Phycology
54 citations, 0.23%
|
|
Biomolecules
54 citations, 0.23%
|
|
Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering
52 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Fungal Biology
50 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology
50 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Microbial Cell Factories
50 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Journal of Molecular Catalysis B Enzymatic
50 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Mikrobiolohichnyi zhurnal (Kiev, Ukraine : 1993)
49 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Sustainability
49 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Catalysts
48 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Current Microbiology
48 citations, 0.21%
|
|
International Biodeterioration and Biodegradation
47 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Phytochemistry
46 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Journal of Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology
46 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Industrial Crops and Products
45 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Russian Journal of Bioorganic Chemistry
45 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Journal of Environmental Management
45 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Moscow University Chemistry Bulletin
44 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Moscow University Biological Sciences Bulletin
44 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Chemical Engineering Journal
44 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Biology
44 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Khimiya Rastitel'nogo Syr'ya
43 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Nanomaterials
43 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Heliyon
43 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Algal Research
43 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Biosensors
42 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
41 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Journal of Basic Microbiology
41 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Прикладная биохимия и микробиология
41 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Biotechnology Journal
40 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Environmental Pollution
39 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety
38 citations, 0.16%
|
|
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy
38 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Soil Biology and Biochemistry
38 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Processes
38 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Preparative Biochemistry and Biotechnology
38 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Food Research International
38 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Biophysics (Russian Federation)
38 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Plant and Soil
38 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery
37 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Biotechnology and Bioprocess Engineering
37 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry
37 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Water Research
37 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Annals of Microbiology
37 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Materials
37 citations, 0.16%
|
|
BIO Web of Conferences
37 citations, 0.16%
|
|
AIP Conference Proceedings
36 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Biotechnology Letters
35 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
35 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture
35 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Biotechnology and Bioengineering
35 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Critical Reviews in Biotechnology
35 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering
34 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
|
Citing publishers
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
|
|
Elsevier
5829 citations, 25.19%
|
|
Springer Nature
3828 citations, 16.54%
|
|
MDPI
2560 citations, 11.06%
|
|
Pleiades Publishing
2440 citations, 10.55%
|
|
Wiley
1617 citations, 6.99%
|
|
Taylor & Francis
806 citations, 3.48%
|
|
American Chemical Society (ACS)
524 citations, 2.26%
|
|
Frontiers Media S.A.
512 citations, 2.21%
|
|
Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)
324 citations, 1.4%
|
|
Oxford University Press
167 citations, 0.72%
|
|
IOP Publishing
160 citations, 0.69%
|
|
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
157 citations, 0.68%
|
|
American Society for Microbiology
142 citations, 0.61%
|
|
Hindawi Limited
107 citations, 0.46%
|
|
State Research Institute for Genetics and Selection of Industrial Microorganisms
82 citations, 0.35%
|
|
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
80 citations, 0.35%
|
|
IntechOpen
78 citations, 0.34%
|
|
Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.
72 citations, 0.31%
|
|
The Russian Academy of Sciences
70 citations, 0.3%
|
|
SAGE
68 citations, 0.29%
|
|
Institute of Molecular Biology and Genetics (NAS Ukraine)
67 citations, 0.29%
|
|
EDP Sciences
66 citations, 0.29%
|
|
AIP Publishing
53 citations, 0.23%
|
|
Walter de Gruyter
50 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Altai State University
47 citations, 0.2%
|
|
SciELO
40 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Trans Tech Publications
38 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Scientific Research Publishing
38 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Korean Society for Biotechnology and Bioengineering
37 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Science Alert
37 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Mary Ann Liebert
35 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Irkutsk National Research Technical University
34 citations, 0.15%
|
|
National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (Co. LTD Ukrinformnauka) (Publications)
32 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Scientific Societies
28 citations, 0.12%
|
|
King Saud University
27 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Institute of Cytology and Genetics SB RAS
26 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Moscow University Press
25 citations, 0.11%
|
|
PeerJ
24 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Allerton Press
24 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Publishing House Belorusskaya Nauka
24 citations, 0.1%
|
|
IGI Global
24 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Cambridge University Press
22 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Canadian Science Publishing
22 citations, 0.1%
|
|
CSIRO Publishing
22 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Microbiology Society
21 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Academic Journals
21 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
21 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Eco-Vector LLC
20 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Wageningen Academic Publishers
20 citations, 0.09%
|
|
The Gorbatov's All-Russian Meat Research Institute
20 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences
19 citations, 0.08%
|
|
Kemerovo State University
19 citations, 0.08%
|
|
Instituto de Tecnologia do Parana
18 citations, 0.08%
|
|
Kalvis
17 citations, 0.07%
|
|
Han-Gug Misaengmul Hag-hoe/The Microbiological Society of Korea
16 citations, 0.07%
|
|
IOS Press
15 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Akademizdatcenter Nauka
15 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Autonomous Non-profit Organization Editorial Board of the journal Uspekhi Khimii
15 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Emerald
14 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Korean Society of Food Science and Technology
14 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Research Square Platform LLC
14 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
13 citations, 0.06%
|
|
IWA Publishing
13 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Lviv Polytechnic National University
13 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Korean Society of Plant Pathology
13 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Korean Society of Mycology
13 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Institute of Biochemistry
13 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Veterinary World
12 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Journal of Pure and Applied Microbiology
12 citations, 0.05%
|
|
FSBSI All-Russian Scientfic Research Institute of Vegetable Breeding and Seed Production
12 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Japan Society for Analytical Chemistry
11 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Akademiai Kiado
11 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Asian Network for Scientific Information
10 citations, 0.04%
|
|
American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
10 citations, 0.04%
|
|
10 citations, 0.04%
|
|
10 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Palladin Institute of Biochemistry of the NASU
10 citations, 0.04%
|
|
The Electrochemical Society
10 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Oriental Scientific Publishing Company
9 citations, 0.04%
|
|
FSBSI FRC N.I. Vavilov All-Russian Institute of Plant Genetic Resources
9 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Begell House
8 citations, 0.03%
|
|
International Association for Food Protection
8 citations, 0.03%
|
|
China Science Publishing & Media
8 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)
7 citations, 0.03%
|
|
The Royal Society
7 citations, 0.03%
|
|
American Institute of Mathematical Sciences (AIMS)
7 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Ivanovo State University of Chemistry and Technology
7 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Zhejiang University Press
7 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Institute of Applied Ecology
7 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Water Environment Federation
7 citations, 0.03%
|
|
SPb RAACI
7 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Gabonatermesztesi Kutato Kozhasznu Tarsasag/Cereal Research Non-Profit Company
7 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Annual Reviews
7 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Center of Pharmaceutical Analytics Ltd
7 citations, 0.03%
|
|
FSBEI HE Voronezh State University of Engineering Technologies
7 citations, 0.03%
|
|
FARC of the North-East named N.V. Rudnitskogo
7 citations, 0.03%
|
|
World Scientific
6 citations, 0.03%
|
|
American Society for Horticultural Science
6 citations, 0.03%
|
|
International Union of Crystallography (IUCr)
6 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Pensoft Publishers
6 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
|
Publishing organizations
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
|
|
Bach Institute of Biochemistry of the Russian Academy of Sciences
427 publications, 14.51%
|
|
Lomonosov Moscow State University
316 publications, 10.74%
|
|
Skryabin Institute of Biochemistry and Physiology of Microorganisms of the Russian Academy of Sciences
197 publications, 6.69%
|
|
Federal Research Centre “Fundamentals of Biotechnology” of the Russian Academy of Sciences
183 publications, 6.22%
|
|
State Research Institute of Genetics and Selection of Industrial Microorganisms of NRC «Kurchatov Institute»
120 publications, 4.08%
|
|
Winogradsky Institute of Microbiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences
89 publications, 3.02%
|
|
National Research Centre "Kurchatov Institute"
75 publications, 2.55%
|
|
Shemyakin-Ovchinnikov Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry of the Russian Academy of Sciences
69 publications, 2.34%
|
|
Ufa Federal Research Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences
68 publications, 2.31%
|
|
Emanuel Institute of Biochemical Physics of the Russian Academy of Sciences
64 publications, 2.17%
|
|
Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus
54 publications, 1.83%
|
|
Institute of Biochemistry and Physiology of Plants and Microorganisms SarSc of the Russian Academy of Sciences
51 publications, 1.73%
|
|
Institute of Ecology and Genetics of Microorganisms of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
49 publications, 1.66%
|
|
Siberian Institute of Plant Physiology and Biochemistry of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
46 publications, 1.56%
|
|
Institute of Biochemistry and Genetics of the Ufa Federal Research Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences
43 publications, 1.46%
|
|
Pushchino State Institute of Natural Sciences
41 publications, 1.39%
|
|
Institute of Microbiology of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus
40 publications, 1.36%
|
|
A.N.Nesmeyanov Institute of Organoelement Compounds of the Russian Academy of Sciences
37 publications, 1.26%
|
|
State Research Center for Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology
35 publications, 1.19%
|
|
Ufa Institute of the Ufa Federal Research Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences
30 publications, 1.02%
|
|
Kazan Federal University
30 publications, 1.02%
|
|
Timiryazev Institute of Plant Physiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences
27 publications, 0.92%
|
|
G. B. Elyakov Pacific Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry of the Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
27 publications, 0.92%
|
|
Gause Institute of New Antibiotics
27 publications, 0.92%
|
|
MIREA — Russian Technological University
24 publications, 0.82%
|
|
Saint Petersburg State University
24 publications, 0.82%
|
|
Perm State National Research University
23 publications, 0.78%
|
|
Voronezh State University
22 publications, 0.75%
|
|
A.V. Topchiev Institute of Petrochemical Synthesis RAS
20 publications, 0.68%
|
|
State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology VECTOR
20 publications, 0.68%
|
|
Institute of Basic Biological Problems of the Russian Academy of Sciences
19 publications, 0.65%
|
|
Peoples' Friendship University of Russia
19 publications, 0.65%
|
|
Ufa University of Science and Technology
19 publications, 0.65%
|
|
Institute of Biophysics of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
18 publications, 0.61%
|
|
Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University
18 publications, 0.61%
|
|
Belarusian State University
18 publications, 0.61%
|
|
Institute of General and Experimental Biology of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
17 publications, 0.58%
|
|
Mendeleev University of Chemical Technology of Russia
17 publications, 0.58%
|
|
Institute of Physiology Komi SC of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
17 publications, 0.58%
|
|
I.I. Mechnikov Scientific Research Institute of Vaccines and Serums
17 publications, 0.58%
|
|
All-Russian Institute of Plant Protection
16 publications, 0.54%
|
|
Pushchino Scientific Center for Biological Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences
16 publications, 0.54%
|
|
Tula State University
15 publications, 0.51%
|
|
V. N. Orekhovich Research Institute of Biomedical Chemistry
15 publications, 0.51%
|
|
All-Russian Research Institute of Agricultural Biotechnology
15 publications, 0.51%
|
|
![]() Boreskov Institute of Catalysis of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
14 publications, 0.48%
|
|
All-Russian Research Institute of Agricultural Microbiology
14 publications, 0.48%
|
|
Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology of the Russian Academy of Sciences
13 publications, 0.44%
|
|
N.N. Semenov Federal Research Center for Chemical Physics of the Russian Academy of Sciences
13 publications, 0.44%
|
|
Kazan Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences
13 publications, 0.44%
|
|
Far Eastern Federal University
13 publications, 0.44%
|
|
Novosibirsk State University
13 publications, 0.44%
|
|
Ogarev Mordovia State University
13 publications, 0.44%
|
|
Tsitsin Main Moscow Botanical Garden of the Russian Academy of Sciences
13 publications, 0.44%
|
|
N.D. Zelinsky Institute of Organic Chemistry of the Russian Academy of Sciences
12 publications, 0.41%
|
|
Kazan Institute of Biochemistry and Biophysics of the Kazan Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences
12 publications, 0.41%
|
|
Institute of Macromolecular Compounds of NRC «Kurchatov Institute»
12 publications, 0.41%
|
|
V. M. Gorbatov Federal Research Center for Food Systems of Russian Academy of Sciences
12 publications, 0.41%
|
|
Plekhanov Russian University of Economics
12 publications, 0.41%
|
|
Saratov State Agrarian University
12 publications, 0.41%
|
|
Koltsov Institute of Developmental Biology of the Russian Academy of Sciences
11 publications, 0.37%
|
|
All-Russian Research Institute Fisheries and Oceanography
11 publications, 0.37%
|
|
Institute of Biology of the Karelian Research Centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences
10 publications, 0.34%
|
|
Institute of Cytology and Genetics of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
10 publications, 0.34%
|
|
Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University
10 publications, 0.34%
|
|
Vyatka State University
10 publications, 0.34%
|
|
V. F. Kuprevich Institute of Experimental Botany of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus
10 publications, 0.34%
|
|
Karelian Research Centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences
10 publications, 0.34%
|
|
Federal Scientific Center of the East Asia Terrestrial Biodiversity of the Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
9 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Vitebsk State Medical University
9 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Institute of Microbiology of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Uzbekistan
9 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Sichuan University
9 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Jiangnan University
9 publications, 0.31%
|
|
A.N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution of the Russian Academy of Sciences
8 publications, 0.27%
|
|
Kotelnikov Institute of Radioengineering and Electronics of the Russian Academy of Sciences
8 publications, 0.27%
|
|
Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod
8 publications, 0.27%
|
|
Southern Federal University
8 publications, 0.27%
|
|
Orenburg State University
8 publications, 0.27%
|
|
N. F. Gamaleya National Research Center for Epidemiology and Microbiology of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation
8 publications, 0.27%
|
|
Saint-Petersburg State Chemical and Pharmaceutical University
8 publications, 0.27%
|
|
Indian Agricultural Research Institute
8 publications, 0.27%
|
|
Institute of Cell Biophysics of the Russian Academy of Sciences
7 publications, 0.24%
|
|
N.N. Vorozhtsov Novosibirsk Institute of Organic Chemistry of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
7 publications, 0.24%
|
|
Kuban State University
7 publications, 0.24%
|
|
Institute of Chemistry of New Materials of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus
7 publications, 0.24%
|
|
D. I. Ivanovsky Institute of Virology
7 publications, 0.24%
|
|
Smorodintsev Research Institute of Influenza
7 publications, 0.24%
|
|
Perm Federal Research Center of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
7 publications, 0.24%
|
|
Voronezh State University of Engineering Technology
7 publications, 0.24%
|
|
National university of Uzbekistan
7 publications, 0.24%
|
|
Warsaw University of Life Sciences
7 publications, 0.24%
|
|
A.N. Frumkin Institute of Physical Chemistry and Electrochemistry of the Russian Academy of Sciences
6 publications, 0.2%
|
|
Komarov Botanical Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences
6 publications, 0.2%
|
|
Saratov State University
6 publications, 0.2%
|
|
Altai State University
6 publications, 0.2%
|
|
Irkutsk State University
6 publications, 0.2%
|
|
St. Petersburg State Technological Institute (Technical University)
6 publications, 0.2%
|
|
National University of Oil and Gas «Gubkin University»
6 publications, 0.2%
|
|
Reshetnev Siberian State University of Science and Technology
6 publications, 0.2%
|
|
M.P. Chumakov Federal Scientific Center for Research and Development of Immunobiological Drugs of the Russian Academy of Sciences
6 publications, 0.2%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
|
Publishing organizations in 5 years
20
40
60
80
100
120
|
|
Federal Research Centre “Fundamentals of Biotechnology” of the Russian Academy of Sciences
105 publications, 15.91%
|
|
Lomonosov Moscow State University
77 publications, 11.67%
|
|
Bach Institute of Biochemistry of the Russian Academy of Sciences
59 publications, 8.94%
|
|
National Research Centre "Kurchatov Institute"
44 publications, 6.67%
|
|
Shemyakin-Ovchinnikov Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry of the Russian Academy of Sciences
25 publications, 3.79%
|
|
State Research Institute of Genetics and Selection of Industrial Microorganisms of NRC «Kurchatov Institute»
21 publications, 3.18%
|
|
Ufa Federal Research Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences
21 publications, 3.18%
|
|
Skryabin Institute of Biochemistry and Physiology of Microorganisms of the Russian Academy of Sciences
20 publications, 3.03%
|
|
Institute of Biochemistry and Physiology of Plants and Microorganisms SarSc of the Russian Academy of Sciences
13 publications, 1.97%
|
|
Gause Institute of New Antibiotics
13 publications, 1.97%
|
|
Pushchino Scientific Center for Biological Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences
13 publications, 1.97%
|
|
Institute of Biochemistry and Genetics of the Ufa Federal Research Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences
12 publications, 1.82%
|
|
Winogradsky Institute of Microbiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences
11 publications, 1.67%
|
|
Saint Petersburg State University
11 publications, 1.67%
|
|
Ufa Institute of the Ufa Federal Research Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences
10 publications, 1.52%
|
|
Institute of Ecology and Genetics of Microorganisms of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
10 publications, 1.52%
|
|
All-Russian Institute of Plant Protection
10 publications, 1.52%
|
|
Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology of the Russian Academy of Sciences
7 publications, 1.06%
|
|
Siberian Institute of Plant Physiology and Biochemistry of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
7 publications, 1.06%
|
|
Perm State National Research University
7 publications, 1.06%
|
|
Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University
7 publications, 1.06%
|
|
V. N. Orekhovich Research Institute of Biomedical Chemistry
7 publications, 1.06%
|
|
State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology VECTOR
7 publications, 1.06%
|
|
Saratov State Agrarian University
7 publications, 1.06%
|
|
State Research Center for Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology
7 publications, 1.06%
|
|
Sichuan University
7 publications, 1.06%
|
|
Novosibirsk State University
6 publications, 0.91%
|
|
National Research University Higher School of Economics
5 publications, 0.76%
|
|
A.V. Topchiev Institute of Petrochemical Synthesis RAS
5 publications, 0.76%
|
|
Kazan Federal University
5 publications, 0.76%
|
|
University of Tyumen
5 publications, 0.76%
|
|
Voronezh State University
5 publications, 0.76%
|
|
Altai State University
5 publications, 0.76%
|
|
Vyatka State University
5 publications, 0.76%
|
|
N. F. Gamaleya National Research Center for Epidemiology and Microbiology of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation
5 publications, 0.76%
|
|
Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus
5 publications, 0.76%
|
|
Institute of Chemistry of New Materials of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus
5 publications, 0.76%
|
|
V. F. Kuprevich Institute of Experimental Botany of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus
5 publications, 0.76%
|
|
All-Russian Research Institute of Agricultural Biotechnology
5 publications, 0.76%
|
|
Perm Federal Research Center of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
5 publications, 0.76%
|
|
Timiryazev Institute of Plant Physiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences
4 publications, 0.61%
|
|
Institute of General and Experimental Biology of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
4 publications, 0.61%
|
|
Emanuel Institute of Biochemical Physics of the Russian Academy of Sciences
4 publications, 0.61%
|
|
Kotelnikov Institute of Radioengineering and Electronics of the Russian Academy of Sciences
4 publications, 0.61%
|
|
Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod
4 publications, 0.61%
|
|
Peoples' Friendship University of Russia
4 publications, 0.61%
|
|
Southern Federal University
4 publications, 0.61%
|
|
Tula State University
4 publications, 0.61%
|
|
Ogarev Mordovia State University
4 publications, 0.61%
|
|
All-Russian Research Institute Fisheries and Oceanography
4 publications, 0.61%
|
|
All-Russian Research Institute of Agricultural Microbiology
4 publications, 0.61%
|
|
Ufa University of Science and Technology
4 publications, 0.61%
|
|
Mashhad University of Medical Sciences
4 publications, 0.61%
|
|
Vellore Institute of Technology University
4 publications, 0.61%
|
|
Institute of Basic Biological Problems of the Russian Academy of Sciences
3 publications, 0.45%
|
|
Far Eastern Federal University
3 publications, 0.45%
|
|
MIREA — Russian Technological University
3 publications, 0.45%
|
|
Institute of Physiology Komi SC of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
3 publications, 0.45%
|
|
Northern (Arctic) Federal University
3 publications, 0.45%
|
|
D. I. Ivanovsky Institute of Virology
3 publications, 0.45%
|
|
Smorodintsev Research Institute of Influenza
3 publications, 0.45%
|
|
Research Centre for Medical Genetics
3 publications, 0.45%
|
|
Herzen Moscow Oncology Research Institute
3 publications, 0.45%
|
|
Federal Research Center of Nutrition, Biotechnology and Food Safety
3 publications, 0.45%
|
|
Ferdowsi University of Mashhad
3 publications, 0.45%
|
|
Gujarat University
3 publications, 0.45%
|
|
Payame Noor University
3 publications, 0.45%
|
|
SRM Institute of Science and Technology
3 publications, 0.45%
|
|
Maharshi Dayanand University
3 publications, 0.45%
|
|
Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology
3 publications, 0.45%
|
|
Nanjing Tech University
3 publications, 0.45%
|
|
Shenzhen MSU-BIT University
3 publications, 0.45%
|
|
University of Belgrade
3 publications, 0.45%
|
|
A.N. Frumkin Institute of Physical Chemistry and Electrochemistry of the Russian Academy of Sciences
2 publications, 0.3%
|
|
Kazan Institute of Biochemistry and Biophysics of the Kazan Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences
2 publications, 0.3%
|
|
Komarov Botanical Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences
2 publications, 0.3%
|
|
G. B. Elyakov Pacific Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry of the Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
2 publications, 0.3%
|
|
Federal Scientific Center of the East Asia Terrestrial Biodiversity of the Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
2 publications, 0.3%
|
|
Institute of Cytology and Genetics of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
2 publications, 0.3%
|
|
Boreskov Institute of Catalysis of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
2 publications, 0.3%
|
|
Kurchatov Complex of Crystallography and Photonics of NRC «Kurchatov Institute»
2 publications, 0.3%
|
|
Institute for Automation and Control Processes of the Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
2 publications, 0.3%
|
|
Shubnikov Institute of Crystallography
2 publications, 0.3%
|
|
A. O. Kovalevsky Institute of Biology of the Southern Seas of the Russian Academy of Science
2 publications, 0.3%
|
|
Mendeleev University of Chemical Technology of Russia
2 publications, 0.3%
|
|
Kuban State University
2 publications, 0.3%
|
|
St. Petersburg State Technological Institute (Technical University)
2 publications, 0.3%
|
|
Belarusian State University
2 publications, 0.3%
|
|
National University of Oil and Gas «Gubkin University»
2 publications, 0.3%
|
|
National Medical Research Center Obsterics, Gynecology and Perinatology the name of Academician V.I. Kulakov
2 publications, 0.3%
|
|
M.P. Chumakov Federal Scientific Center for Research and Development of Immunobiological Drugs of the Russian Academy of Sciences
2 publications, 0.3%
|
|
Federal Research Center of Fundamental and Translational Medicine
2 publications, 0.3%
|
|
Pushchino State Institute of Natural Sciences
2 publications, 0.3%
|
|
Laverov Federal Center of Integrated Arctic Research of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
2 publications, 0.3%
|
|
Saint-Petersburg State Agrarian University
2 publications, 0.3%
|
|
Saratov Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences
2 publications, 0.3%
|
|
All-Russian National Research Institute of Viticulture and Winemaking «Magarach» of the Russian Academy of Sciences
2 publications, 0.3%
|
|
N. I. Vavilov Institute of Plant Genetic Resources
2 publications, 0.3%
|
|
Ryazan State Medical University named after Academician I.P. Pavlov
2 publications, 0.3%
|
|
Central Institute for Tuberculosis
2 publications, 0.3%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
20
40
60
80
100
120
|
Publishing countries
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
|
|
Russia
|
Russia, 2066, 70.2%
Russia
2066 publications, 70.2%
|
China
|
China, 174, 5.91%
China
174 publications, 5.91%
|
Belarus
|
Belarus, 129, 4.38%
Belarus
129 publications, 4.38%
|
India
|
India, 103, 3.5%
India
103 publications, 3.5%
|
Ukraine
|
Ukraine, 83, 2.82%
Ukraine
83 publications, 2.82%
|
Armenia
|
Armenia, 32, 1.09%
Armenia
32 publications, 1.09%
|
Turkey
|
Turkey, 30, 1.02%
Turkey
30 publications, 1.02%
|
Germany
|
Germany, 27, 0.92%
Germany
27 publications, 0.92%
|
Iran
|
Iran, 27, 0.92%
Iran
27 publications, 0.92%
|
Georgia
|
Georgia, 20, 0.68%
Georgia
20 publications, 0.68%
|
Republic of Korea
|
Republic of Korea, 20, 0.68%
Republic of Korea
20 publications, 0.68%
|
Uzbekistan
|
Uzbekistan, 20, 0.68%
Uzbekistan
20 publications, 0.68%
|
Vietnam
|
Vietnam, 18, 0.61%
Vietnam
18 publications, 0.61%
|
Poland
|
Poland, 16, 0.54%
Poland
16 publications, 0.54%
|
USA
|
USA, 14, 0.48%
USA
14 publications, 0.48%
|
Kazakhstan
|
Kazakhstan, 13, 0.44%
Kazakhstan
13 publications, 0.44%
|
Japan
|
Japan, 13, 0.44%
Japan
13 publications, 0.44%
|
Malaysia
|
Malaysia, 12, 0.41%
Malaysia
12 publications, 0.41%
|
Thailand
|
Thailand, 12, 0.41%
Thailand
12 publications, 0.41%
|
Egypt
|
Egypt, 11, 0.37%
Egypt
11 publications, 0.37%
|
Serbia
|
Serbia, 11, 0.37%
Serbia
11 publications, 0.37%
|
Pakistan
|
Pakistan, 9, 0.31%
Pakistan
9 publications, 0.31%
|
Saudi Arabia
|
Saudi Arabia, 9, 0.31%
Saudi Arabia
9 publications, 0.31%
|
United Kingdom
|
United Kingdom, 8, 0.27%
United Kingdom
8 publications, 0.27%
|
Mexico
|
Mexico, 7, 0.24%
Mexico
7 publications, 0.24%
|
Bulgaria
|
Bulgaria, 6, 0.2%
Bulgaria
6 publications, 0.2%
|
Spain
|
Spain, 5, 0.17%
Spain
5 publications, 0.17%
|
Netherlands
|
Netherlands, 5, 0.17%
Netherlands
5 publications, 0.17%
|
Sweden
|
Sweden, 5, 0.17%
Sweden
5 publications, 0.17%
|
Australia
|
Australia, 4, 0.14%
Australia
4 publications, 0.14%
|
Brazil
|
Brazil, 4, 0.14%
Brazil
4 publications, 0.14%
|
South Africa
|
South Africa, 4, 0.14%
South Africa
4 publications, 0.14%
|
Azerbaijan
|
Azerbaijan, 3, 0.1%
Azerbaijan
3 publications, 0.1%
|
Denmark
|
Denmark, 3, 0.1%
Denmark
3 publications, 0.1%
|
Canada
|
Canada, 3, 0.1%
Canada
3 publications, 0.1%
|
Tunisia
|
Tunisia, 3, 0.1%
Tunisia
3 publications, 0.1%
|
France
|
France, 2, 0.07%
France
2 publications, 0.07%
|
Portugal
|
Portugal, 2, 0.07%
Portugal
2 publications, 0.07%
|
Argentina
|
Argentina, 2, 0.07%
Argentina
2 publications, 0.07%
|
Israel
|
Israel, 2, 0.07%
Israel
2 publications, 0.07%
|
Indonesia
|
Indonesia, 2, 0.07%
Indonesia
2 publications, 0.07%
|
Ireland
|
Ireland, 2, 0.07%
Ireland
2 publications, 0.07%
|
Italy
|
Italy, 2, 0.07%
Italy
2 publications, 0.07%
|
Morocco
|
Morocco, 2, 0.07%
Morocco
2 publications, 0.07%
|
Moldova
|
Moldova, 2, 0.07%
Moldova
2 publications, 0.07%
|
Singapore
|
Singapore, 2, 0.07%
Singapore
2 publications, 0.07%
|
Finland
|
Finland, 2, 0.07%
Finland
2 publications, 0.07%
|
Czech Republic
|
Czech Republic, 2, 0.07%
Czech Republic
2 publications, 0.07%
|
Estonia
|
Estonia, 1, 0.03%
Estonia
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Belgium
|
Belgium, 1, 0.03%
Belgium
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Brunei
|
Brunei, 1, 0.03%
Brunei
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Jordan
|
Jordan, 1, 0.03%
Jordan
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Iraq
|
Iraq, 1, 0.03%
Iraq
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Kuwait
|
Kuwait, 1, 0.03%
Kuwait
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Lithuania
|
Lithuania, 1, 0.03%
Lithuania
1 publication, 0.03%
|
New Zealand
|
New Zealand, 1, 0.03%
New Zealand
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Peru
|
Peru, 1, 0.03%
Peru
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Rwanda
|
Rwanda, 1, 0.03%
Rwanda
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Romania
|
Romania, 1, 0.03%
Romania
1 publication, 0.03%
|
North Macedonia
|
North Macedonia, 1, 0.03%
North Macedonia
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Slovenia
|
Slovenia, 1, 0.03%
Slovenia
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Chile
|
Chile, 1, 0.03%
Chile
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Switzerland
|
Switzerland, 1, 0.03%
Switzerland
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Sri Lanka
|
Sri Lanka, 1, 0.03%
Sri Lanka
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Ethiopia
|
Ethiopia, 1, 0.03%
Ethiopia
1 publication, 0.03%
|
Show all (35 more) | |
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
|
Publishing countries in 5 years
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
|
|
Russia
|
Russia, 384, 58.18%
Russia
384 publications, 58.18%
|
China
|
China, 69, 10.45%
China
69 publications, 10.45%
|
India
|
India, 53, 8.03%
India
53 publications, 8.03%
|
Belarus
|
Belarus, 18, 2.73%
Belarus
18 publications, 2.73%
|
Iran
|
Iran, 13, 1.97%
Iran
13 publications, 1.97%
|
Turkey
|
Turkey, 10, 1.52%
Turkey
10 publications, 1.52%
|
Vietnam
|
Vietnam, 9, 1.36%
Vietnam
9 publications, 1.36%
|
Republic of Korea
|
Republic of Korea, 8, 1.21%
Republic of Korea
8 publications, 1.21%
|
Ukraine
|
Ukraine, 6, 0.91%
Ukraine
6 publications, 0.91%
|
USA
|
USA, 5, 0.76%
USA
5 publications, 0.76%
|
Malaysia
|
Malaysia, 5, 0.76%
Malaysia
5 publications, 0.76%
|
Japan
|
Japan, 5, 0.76%
Japan
5 publications, 0.76%
|
United Kingdom
|
United Kingdom, 4, 0.61%
United Kingdom
4 publications, 0.61%
|
Serbia
|
Serbia, 4, 0.61%
Serbia
4 publications, 0.61%
|
Mexico
|
Mexico, 3, 0.45%
Mexico
3 publications, 0.45%
|
Pakistan
|
Pakistan, 3, 0.45%
Pakistan
3 publications, 0.45%
|
Saudi Arabia
|
Saudi Arabia, 3, 0.45%
Saudi Arabia
3 publications, 0.45%
|
Thailand
|
Thailand, 3, 0.45%
Thailand
3 publications, 0.45%
|
Uzbekistan
|
Uzbekistan, 3, 0.45%
Uzbekistan
3 publications, 0.45%
|
Germany
|
Germany, 2, 0.3%
Germany
2 publications, 0.3%
|
Australia
|
Australia, 2, 0.3%
Australia
2 publications, 0.3%
|
Egypt
|
Egypt, 2, 0.3%
Egypt
2 publications, 0.3%
|
Indonesia
|
Indonesia, 2, 0.3%
Indonesia
2 publications, 0.3%
|
Spain
|
Spain, 2, 0.3%
Spain
2 publications, 0.3%
|
Kazakhstan
|
Kazakhstan, 1, 0.15%
Kazakhstan
1 publication, 0.15%
|
Armenia
|
Armenia, 1, 0.15%
Armenia
1 publication, 0.15%
|
Brazil
|
Brazil, 1, 0.15%
Brazil
1 publication, 0.15%
|
Brunei
|
Brunei, 1, 0.15%
Brunei
1 publication, 0.15%
|
Israel
|
Israel, 1, 0.15%
Israel
1 publication, 0.15%
|
Iraq
|
Iraq, 1, 0.15%
Iraq
1 publication, 0.15%
|
Ireland
|
Ireland, 1, 0.15%
Ireland
1 publication, 0.15%
|
Morocco
|
Morocco, 1, 0.15%
Morocco
1 publication, 0.15%
|
Peru
|
Peru, 1, 0.15%
Peru
1 publication, 0.15%
|
Poland
|
Poland, 1, 0.15%
Poland
1 publication, 0.15%
|
Ethiopia
|
Ethiopia, 1, 0.15%
Ethiopia
1 publication, 0.15%
|
South Africa
|
South Africa, 1, 0.15%
South Africa
1 publication, 0.15%
|
Show all (6 more) | |
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
|
13 profile journal articles
Arlyapov Vyacheslav

N.D. Zelinsky Institute of Organic Chemistry of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Tula State University
65 publications,
767 citations
h-index: 18
5 profile journal articles
Ponamoreva Olga
54 publications,
527 citations
h-index: 13
5 profile journal articles
Ivashechkin Aleksey
17 publications,
166 citations
h-index: 6
4 profile journal articles
Novikov Andrei
PhD in Chemistry, Associate Professor

National University of Oil and Gas «Gubkin University»
118 publications,
1 738 citations
h-index: 24
Research interests
Nanoparticles
Phase equilibria
Phase transitions
4 profile journal articles
But Sergey

Winogradsky Institute of Microbiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Skryabin Institute of Biochemistry and Physiology of Microorganisms of the Russian Academy of Sciences
29 publications,
315 citations
h-index: 11
4 profile journal articles
Alferov Sergey
🤝
PhD in Chemistry, Associate Professor

Tula State University
40 publications,
360 citations
h-index: 12
Research interests
Biocatalysis
Biochemistry
Biotechnology
Green chemistry
Microbiology
Nanomaterials
4 profile journal articles
Andreeva Natalia
8 publications,
145 citations
h-index: 5