Are you a researcher?
Create a profile to get free access to personal recommendations for colleagues and new articles.
SCImago
Q1
WOS
Q1
Impact factor
6.8
SJR
1.112
CiteScore
5.2
Categories
Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
Plant Science
Areas
Agricultural and Biological Sciences
Years of issue
2021-2025
journal names
Plant Stress
Top-3 citing journals
Top-3 organizations

King Saud University
(24 publications)

The Islamia University of Bahawalpur
(18 publications)

University of Agriculture, Faisalabad
(18 publications)
Most cited in 5 years
Found
Publications found: 5199
Q1

Treetop: topology optimization using constructive solid geometry trees
Kumar Padhy R., Thombre P., Suresh K., Chandrasekhar A.
Q1
Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization
,
2025
,
citations by CoLab: 0

Q1

Integrating moving morphable components and plastic layout optimization: a two-stage approach for enhanced structural topology optimization
Lotfalian A., Esmaeilpour P., Yoon G.H., Takalloozadeh M.
Q1
Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization
,
2025
,
citations by CoLab: 0

Q1

Simultaneous node-based shape and thickness optimization of thin-walled structures using the explicit Vertex Morphing method
Schmölz D., Devresse B., Geiser A., Bletzinger K.
Abstract
Node-based shape optimization has been successfully and consistently formulated via shape and sensitivity filtering methods. This work studies the union of the Vertex Morphing method, a shape parameterization technique that uses an explicit shape filtering approach, and shell thickness optimization. On this occasion, thickness variables are explicitly filtered similarly to the shape, but their filter is computed on the initial geometry configuration throughout the optimization. The problem is formulated such that both design variable types are optimized concurrently. Gradient-based algorithms are employed to solve the optimization problem, which have proven well suited for the Vertex Morphing method. Due to the different dimensionalities of the shape and thickness variables, a design variable scaling method between the two types is proposed, improving the convergence behavior without the necessity of second-order information. Academic examples and the application of a structure with industrial significance illustrate the method’s success.
Q1

Connectivity-driven topology optimization for path-following compliant mechanism: a formulation with predictive volume constraints and adaptive strategies for gray element suppression
Zhang L., Koppen S., van Keulen F.
Abstract
We propose a topology optimization (TO) formulation and related optimization scheme for designing compliant mechanisms following a user-defined trajectory. To ensure the broad applicability and achieve precisely control of the outputs, geometric nonlinearity with incremental solutions are considered. A challenge in the design optimization of these structures is the development of formulations with satisfactory balance between (i) precise trajectory control and (ii) proper connectivity between the input/output ports and the support. Previously proposed density-based topology optimization formulations typically lack the promotion of the desired load-transferring connections, or usually complicate the design using mixed shape, size, and topology variables to enforce a minimum connectivity. To simplify design progress using exclusive topology variables, i.e., purely density-based TO methods, we propose a relatively straightforward formulation involving commonly used response functions, such as compliance and volume as constraints. For the constraints, the paper provides a scheme for defining corresponding upper limits. Numerical examples of challenging shell and plate design optimization problems demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed formulation and scheme in the generation of load-transferring connections while limiting the impact on the performance of the path generation functionality.
Q1

Multiscale structural concurrent fail-safe topology optimization
Ding W., Jia H., Xu P., Zhang Y., Cheng F.
Q1
Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization
,
2025
,
citations by CoLab: 0

Q1

Minimum size control for binary topology optimization
Cortez R.L., Setta M., Picelli R., Wadbro E.
Abstract
Topology optimization methods employing binary (also known as discrete) design variables currently lack mathematical formulations to ensure length scale control in their solutions. This paper proposes and applies a morphology-mimicking filtering scheme to provide a minimum size control (often also referred to as minimum length scale control) in this class of binary designs. The Topology Optimization of Binary Structures (TOBS) method was chosen as the foundational framework for this length scale control study. Thermal and structural compliance scenarios were explored under this approach. Numerical results show that the proposed filter efficiently imposes the desired minimum length scale. The optimized designs were also less dependent on the filtering parameters when compared to designs optimized using standard techniques that employ continuous design variables.
Q1

Automatic projection parameter increase for three-field density-based topology optimization
Dunning P., Wein F.
Abstract
A method is proposed to automatically increase the threshold projection parameter in three-field density-based topology optimization to achieve near binary designs. The three-field method is composed of an element-wise design density field that is filtered and then passed through a smooth threshold projection function to compute the projected density field, which is then used to compute element properties, e.g., using a power law for stiffness. The sharpness of the threshold projection function is controlled by a parameter
$$\beta $$
β
. In this paper, a method is introduced to automatically increase this parameter during optimization by linking it to the change in objective function. Furthermore, the gray value indicator is added as a stopping criterion to guarantee the solution is near binary. This results in a method that does not need to be tuned for specific problems, or optimizers, and the same set of user-defined parameters can be used for a wide range of problems. However, a high value of the threshold projection parameter may cause convergence issues for some optimizers, such as the optimally criteria method, and an adaptive move limit strategy is introduced to overcome this problem. It is also shown that some problems require length-scale control to achieve a near binary design. The effectiveness of the method is demonstrated on several benchmark problems, including linear compliance, linear buckling, compliant mechanism, heat conduction, and geometrically nonlinear problems.
Q1

A sequential linear programming approach for truss optimization based on the uncertainty analysis-based data-driven computational mechanics (UA-DDCM)
Huang M., Du Z., Liu C., Zhang W., Guo X.
Q1
Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization
,
2025
,
citations by CoLab: 0

Q1

Topology optimization for pressurized nonlinear structures using substructure and experimental studies
Lu Y., Luo Q., Tong L.
Abstract
A compliant structure under fluidic pressure can undergo relatively large shape change, but the design of such type of structure is challenging as the pressure distribution depends on detailed structural geometry. In this study, a novel mixed substructure-density (MSD) model is proposed for topology representation and update in the optimal design of nonlinear compliant structures under quasi-static fluidic pressure. An optimization algorithm is developed via implementing the present model by using super-elements in commercial finite element analysis (FEA) software. Numerical examples are presented to validate the present model, algorithm, and designs numerically via full linear and nonlinear FEAs. A planar cellular network with five cells arranged in parallel is then designed for representing a pressurized wing rib structure capable of modulating airfoil thickness variation. The test results of the single-cell and five-cell PCS specimens prototyped using polyurethane material show that the respective cell thickness can be reduced by 11.9 and 6.4% respectively under a cell pressure of 250 kPa.
Q1

Constructability-based multi-objective optimization with machine learning-enhanced meta-heuristics for reinforcing bar design in rectangular concrete columns
Verduzco L.F.
Abstract
Optimization of reinforcing bar (rebar) design represents a preponderant factor in reducing material usage and wastes for reinforced concrete (RC) structures. The assessment of constructability of such rebar designs is crucial to improve their practicality and reduce construction costs, which makes the problem multi-objective (MO). However, when applying optimization methods for the design of rebar in RC structures, little attention has been paid on columns, in comparison to beams and slabs. Meta-heuristic algorithms (MA) have been the ones mostly deployed for these types of elements, which have proven to be of high computational cost. Additionally, an existing gap in the literature as to how to relate the design and construction stage of rebar in RC structures through constructability analysis is evident. In this regard, research has been focused mainly at the building level but not at the element level. This works presents a novel algorithmic framework using Machine Learning (ML)-enhanced meta-heuristics for the optimal design of rebar on rectangular RC columns. To assess the constructability of the resulting rebar layouts a Buildability Score (BS) model at the element level is proposed. The complexity analysis of rebar design under the constructability restrictions, through combinatorial optimization (CO), is used to assess the global time efficiency of the framework. The Non-Sorting Genetic Algorithm II (NSGA-II) was deployed for showcase and five different ML algorithms were used to enhance it, namely the k-NN classifier, SVM regression, ANN, Gauss Process (GP) regression, and Tree Ensembles (TE), where the latter three showed the best performance.
Q1

Density-based hole seeding in XFEM level-set topology optimization of fluid problems
Høghøj L.C., Andreasen C.S., Maute K.
Abstract
The optimization results of level-set methods typically suffer from a strong dependence on the initial design. To mitigate this dependence, this work presents a density-based hole nucleation method for level-set topology optimization of flow problems. This is achieved by defining both the level-set and density values as functions of the design variables. To preserve the crispness of the geometry definition afforded by the level-set method, the fluid flow is modeled using the Heaviside enriched eXtended Finite Element Method (XFEM) for the laminar incompressible Navier–Stokes equation, which is augmented by a Brinkman model. The boundary conditions are enforced weakly using Nitsche’s method. A face-oriented ghost stabilization scheme is applied to stabilize the XFEM formulation. Additional terms ensuring stability are added to Nitsche’s method and the ghost stabilization to account for the Brinkman term in the Navier–Stokes equation. The necessity of adding these terms is highlighted by numerical studies. Two- and three-dimensional fluid manifolds are optimized to minimize fluid power dissipation while achieving a predefined mass flow distribution among the outlets. The optimization results show that the proposed method bypasses the need for an initial hole seeding and speeds up the convergence of the optimization process.
Q1

Topology optimization of beams’ cross-sectional properties considering torsional and warping behavior
Kostopoulos C., Marzok A., Waisman H.
This paper introduces a novel efficient topology optimization methodology for beams’ torsion using the warping function formulation. The finite element method is used to discretize the cross-section and an efficient gradient-based optimization problem is formulated to optimize the relevant parameters corresponding to the torsion and warping constants of the beam. As a result, for the first time, one can optimize a beam for problems where the warping behavior is dominant. Density-based optimization is defined where the SIMP approach is utilized to penalize intermediate element densities. A key challenge of the optimization that arises in the warping function framework is the design-dependent nature of the problem. That is, the forcing vector varies during the optimization as it depends on the cross-section boundaries, which are functions of the updating topology. To this end, a differentiable boundary recognition algorithm is proposed. The methodology is applied to design beam cross-sections in which both torsion and warping constants are of interest. While intuitive topologies are obtained in the case of optimized torsion constant, this is not the case for the warping constant. The latter shows unique material distributions and a special dependence on the allowable material density.
Q1

Uncertainty-based multi-disciplinary multi-objective design optimization of unmanned mining electric shovel
Hu Z., Long X., Lian K., Lin S., Song X.
Electric shovel (ES) is a large mining equipment crucial for energy security. The traditional design of the structure and control system of ES is carried out in stages, and the influence of the structural uncertainty for the system is not considered, which makes it difficult to obtain the optimal parameters of the system. Facing the demand of intelligent development, ES designed using traditional deterministic methods is difficult to meet the working demand of unmanned mining electric shovel (UMES). To address these challenges, this paper proposes an uncertainty-based multidisciplinary multi-objective optimization (UMMO) framework for UMES. Within this framework, the mechanical structure of the front-end mechanism was analyzed, excavation trajectories were planned based on a polynomial point-to-point motion strategy, and models for the excavation resistance of the dipper and the dynamical model of the front-end working device were constructed. Then, optimization objective functions were constructed with excavation energy consumption, excavation efficiency, and full dipper rate as targets. By analyzing the working characteristics of UMES, essential constraints were introduced for the mechanical system, control system and hardware. The UMMO optimization model was established to enhance the reliability of the UMES production process. Finally, the mechanical structure dimensions and control system parameters are optimized to generate the optimal physical structure and excavation trajectory considering uncertainties. The numerical results show that compared with the deterministic optimization results, the optimized structure of the proposed UMMO strategy is more compact and the mechanical structure is more reliable in the production process.
Q1

A collaborative adaptive Kriging-based algorithm for the reliability analysis of nested systems
Ye K., Wang H., Ma X.
Complex engineering systems that involve multiple disciplines or scales are often decomposed into multiple subsystems in a nested or hierarchical manner to enhance the analysis efficiency. However, uncertainties inherent in input parameters will propagate with hierarchy, and severely threaten the reliability of engineering systems. Adaptive surrogate modeling technique is a potent tool to alleviate the computational burden of reliability analysis, especially involving time-consuming computer experiments. Conventional black-box adaptive surrogate modeling framework did not incorporate nested characteristic, which is inefficient for the reliability analysis of complex systems with nested or hierarchical characteristics. This paper develops a collaborative adaptive Kriging-based algorithm for the reliability analysis of nested systems. First, we propose a nested U-function to propel the adaptive updating of underlying Kriging models and derive its approximate closed form based on a defined most probable misclassification point. Then, an accuracy enhancement stage is devised to compensate for the inaccuracies of first-order approximation in early iterations. A parallel radius-based importance sampling technique is presented to mitigate the computational effort at multiple candidates. Finally, an index considering the reduction of model uncertainty is exploited to quantify the contribution of individual Kriging model and select the to-be-refined Kriging model in one iteration. Through numerical examples and case studies, the superiority of the proposed methodology is comprehensively illustrated compared with other benchmark methods.
Q1

Discrete variable topology optimization using multi-cut formulation and adaptive trust regions
Ye Z., Pan W.
We present a new framework for efficiently solving general topology optimization (TO) problems that find an optimal material distribution within a design space to maximize the performance of a part or structure while satisfying design constraints. These problems can involve convex or non-convex objective functions and may include multiple candidate materials. The framework is designed to greatly enhance computational efficiency, primarily by diminishing optimization iteration counts and thereby reducing the frequency of solving associated state equilibrium partial differential equations (PDEs) (e.g., through the finite element method (FEM)). It maintains binary design variables and addresses the large-scale mixed integer nonlinear programming (MINLP) problem that arises from discretizing the design space and PDEs. The core of this framework is the integration of the generalized Benders’ decomposition and adaptive trust regions. Specifically, by formulating the master sub-problem (decomposed from the MINLP) as a multi-cut optimization problem and enabling the estimation of the upper and lower bounds of the original objective function, significant acceleration in solution convergence is achieved. The trust region radius adapts based on a merit function. To mitigate ill-conditioning due to extreme parameter values, we further introduce a parameter relaxation scheme where two parameters are relaxed in stages at different paces, improving both solution quality and efficiency. Numerical tests validate the framework’s superior performance, including minimum compliance and compliant mechanism problems in single-material and multi-material designs. We compare our results with those of other methods and demonstrate significant reductions in optimization iterations (and therefore the number of FEM analyses required) by about one order of magnitude, while maintaining comparable optimal objective function values and material layouts. As the design variables and constraints increase, the framework maintains consistent solution quality and efficiency, underscoring its good scalability. We anticipate this framework will be especially advantageous for TO applications involving substantial design variables and constraints and requiring significant computational resources for FEM analyses (or PDE solving).
Top-100
Citing journals
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
|
|
Plant Stress
402 citations, 6.89%
|
|
Plants
311 citations, 5.33%
|
|
Frontiers in Plant Science
243 citations, 4.17%
|
|
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
181 citations, 3.1%
|
|
Plant Physiology and Biochemistry
170 citations, 2.91%
|
|
Agronomy
154 citations, 2.64%
|
|
BMC Plant Biology
149 citations, 2.55%
|
|
Scientific Reports
104 citations, 1.78%
|
|
Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition
100 citations, 1.71%
|
|
Horticulturae
97 citations, 1.66%
|
|
Journal of Plant Growth Regulation
87 citations, 1.49%
|
|
Scientia Horticulturae
78 citations, 1.34%
|
|
Agriculture (Switzerland)
72 citations, 1.23%
|
|
South African Journal of Botany
63 citations, 1.08%
|
|
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
51 citations, 0.87%
|
|
Environmental and Experimental Botany
48 citations, 0.82%
|
|
Physiologia Plantarum
48 citations, 0.82%
|
|
Science of the Total Environment
47 citations, 0.81%
|
|
Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety
45 citations, 0.77%
|
|
Industrial Crops and Products
40 citations, 0.69%
|
|
Journal of Hazardous Materials
38 citations, 0.65%
|
|
Heliyon
37 citations, 0.63%
|
|
Chemosphere
34 citations, 0.58%
|
|
Plant and Soil
34 citations, 0.58%
|
|
Plant Growth Regulation
33 citations, 0.57%
|
|
Journal of Crop Health
32 citations, 0.55%
|
|
Plant Science
31 citations, 0.53%
|
|
Frontiers in Microbiology
30 citations, 0.51%
|
|
Microorganisms
29 citations, 0.5%
|
|
Advances in Environmental Engineering and Green Technologies
29 citations, 0.5%
|
|
Genes
28 citations, 0.48%
|
|
Physiological and Molecular Plant Pathology
28 citations, 0.48%
|
|
Rhizosphere
25 citations, 0.43%
|
|
Biocatalysis and Agricultural Biotechnology
25 citations, 0.43%
|
|
Antioxidants
24 citations, 0.41%
|
|
Sustainability
24 citations, 0.41%
|
|
Plant Nano Biology
24 citations, 0.41%
|
|
Planta
22 citations, 0.38%
|
|
Plant Cell Reports
22 citations, 0.38%
|
|
Microbiological Research
21 citations, 0.36%
|
|
Molecules
20 citations, 0.34%
|
|
Environmental Pollution
20 citations, 0.34%
|
|
Journal of Agriculture and Food Research
20 citations, 0.34%
|
|
Journal of Environmental Management
19 citations, 0.33%
|
|
Physiology and Molecular Biology of Plants
18 citations, 0.31%
|
|
International Journal of Biological Macromolecules
18 citations, 0.31%
|
|
PLoS ONE
18 citations, 0.31%
|
|
Plant Signaling and Behavior
17 citations, 0.29%
|
|
Journal of Plant Nutrition
17 citations, 0.29%
|
|
Forests
17 citations, 0.29%
|
|
Journal of Fungi
16 citations, 0.27%
|
|
Environmental Research
16 citations, 0.27%
|
|
Postharvest Biology and Technology
16 citations, 0.27%
|
|
Silicon
16 citations, 0.27%
|
|
Journal of Plant Biochemistry and Biotechnology
16 citations, 0.27%
|
|
Chemical and Biological Technologies in Agriculture
16 citations, 0.27%
|
|
Current Plant Biology
16 citations, 0.27%
|
|
Life
16 citations, 0.27%
|
|
Russian Journal of Plant Physiology
15 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Functional Plant Biology
15 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Biology
15 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science
14 citations, 0.24%
|
|
International Journal of Phytoremediation
14 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Stresses
14 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Discover Plants
14 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems
13 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Environmental Science and Engineering
13 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Plant, Cell and Environment
13 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Functional and Integrative Genomics
13 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Environmental Technology and Innovation
13 citations, 0.22%
|
|
3 Biotech
13 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution
13 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Journal of Experimental Botany
13 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Current Research in Microbial Sciences
13 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Agricultural Water Management
12 citations, 0.21%
|
|
PeerJ
12 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Journal of Plant Physiology
12 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Metabolites
12 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Foods
11 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture
11 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Applied Soil Ecology
11 citations, 0.19%
|
|
BMC Genomics
10 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Nanomaterials
10 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Applied Sciences (Switzerland)
10 citations, 0.17%
|
|
International Journal of Plant Biology
10 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
10 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Functionalized Smart Nanomaterials for Point-of-Care Testing
10 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Gesunde Pflanzen
9 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Protoplasma
9 citations, 0.15%
|
|
IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science
9 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Acta Horticulturae
9 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Current Issues in Molecular Biology
9 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Crop Protection
9 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Current Microbiology
9 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Cereal Research Communications
9 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Environmental Science: Nano
9 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Biologia (Poland)
9 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Journal of Sustainable Agriculture and Environment
9 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Nanotechnology in the Life Sciences
9 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering
8 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
|
Citing publishers
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
|
|
Elsevier
1858 citations, 31.85%
|
|
Springer Nature
1442 citations, 24.72%
|
|
MDPI
1225 citations, 21%
|
|
Frontiers Media S.A.
324 citations, 5.55%
|
|
Wiley
238 citations, 4.08%
|
|
Taylor & Francis
134 citations, 2.3%
|
|
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
62 citations, 1.06%
|
|
Oxford University Press
58 citations, 0.99%
|
|
American Chemical Society (ACS)
48 citations, 0.82%
|
|
IGI Global
34 citations, 0.58%
|
|
Research Square Platform LLC
30 citations, 0.51%
|
|
Pleiades Publishing
22 citations, 0.38%
|
|
IntechOpen
21 citations, 0.36%
|
|
Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)
19 citations, 0.33%
|
|
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
19 citations, 0.33%
|
|
CSIRO Publishing
17 citations, 0.29%
|
|
IOP Publishing
15 citations, 0.26%
|
|
SciELO
15 citations, 0.26%
|
|
PeerJ
13 citations, 0.22%
|
|
International Society for Horticultural Science (ISHS)
10 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
8 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Cambridge University Press
7 citations, 0.12%
|
|
EDP Sciences
7 citations, 0.12%
|
|
SAGE
6 citations, 0.1%
|
|
National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (Co. LTD Ukrinformnauka) (Publications)
6 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Walter de Gruyter
5 citations, 0.09%
|
|
American Society for Horticultural Science
5 citations, 0.09%
|
|
IWA Publishing
5 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Crop Science Society of America
4 citations, 0.07%
|
|
American Geophysical Union
4 citations, 0.07%
|
|
Gabonatermesztesi Kutato Kozhasznu Tarsasag/Cereal Research Non-Profit Company
4 citations, 0.07%
|
|
American Society for Microbiology
3 citations, 0.05%
|
|
AIP Publishing
3 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Canadian Science Publishing
3 citations, 0.05%
|
|
King Saud University
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Crop Science Society of Japan
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Copernicus
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Korean Society of Food Science and Nutrition
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
The Korean Society for Applied Biological Chemistry
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Fundacion Romulo Raggio
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Kemerovo State University
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Academic Journals
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Oriental Scientific Publishing Company
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
SPIE-Intl Soc Optical Eng
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Centre for Evaluation in Education and Science (CEON/CEES)
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Scientific Societies
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Scientific Research Publishing
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
American Physiological Society
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Mary Ann Liebert
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
The Royal Society
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Portland Press
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
South African Assn. For The Advancement Of Science
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Pensoft Publishers
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Spandidos Publications
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Eco-Vector LLC
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
AcademicPres
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Institute of Molecular Biology and Genetics (NAS Ukraine)
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Korean Society of Breeding Science
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Water Environment Federation
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Ministry of Agriculture
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Japanese Society of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Engineers and Scientists (JASBEES)
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Universidade Federal da Paraiba, Centro de Ciencias e Tecnologia, Departamento de Engenharia Agricola
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Associacao Brasileira de Tecnologia de Sementes
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Han-Gug Misaengmul Hag-hoe/The Microbiological Society of Korea
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Brazilian Society of Floriculture and Ornamental Plants
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Science in China Press
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Ustav ekologie lesa SAV
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Instituto de Tecnologia do Parana
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Medknow
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
The Russian Academy of Sciences
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Social Science Electronic Publishing
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
National Library of Serbia
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Volgograd State Medical University
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Publishing House for Science and Technology, Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology (Publications)
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Institute of Cytology and Genetics SB RAS
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Japanese Society for Plant Cell and Molecular Biology
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
FSBSI Agricultural Research Center Donskoy
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Federal State Educational Institution of Higher Education Novosibirsk State Agrarian University
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Show all (53 more) | |
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
|
Publishing organizations
5
10
15
20
25
|
|
King Saud University
24 publications, 3%
|
|
University of Agriculture, Faisalabad
18 publications, 2.25%
|
|
The Islamia University of Bahawalpur
18 publications, 2.25%
|
|
Banaras Hindu University
14 publications, 1.75%
|
|
Zhejiang University
14 publications, 1.75%
|
|
University of Western Australia
11 publications, 1.38%
|
|
Northwest University
10 publications, 1.25%
|
|
Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University
10 publications, 1.25%
|
|
Bahauddin Zakariya University
9 publications, 1.13%
|
|
University of Agriculture, Peshawar
9 publications, 1.13%
|
|
Shanghai Jiao Tong University
9 publications, 1.13%
|
|
Northwest A&F University
9 publications, 1.13%
|
|
Hainan University
9 publications, 1.13%
|
|
Najran University
8 publications, 1%
|
|
Quaid-i-Azam University
8 publications, 1%
|
|
Government College University, Faisalabad
8 publications, 1%
|
|
University of the Punjab
8 publications, 1%
|
|
Aligarh Muslim University
8 publications, 1%
|
|
University of Allahabad
8 publications, 1%
|
|
Indian Agricultural Research Institute
8 publications, 1%
|
|
South China Agricultural University
8 publications, 1%
|
|
Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University
8 publications, 1%
|
|
Southern Federal University
7 publications, 0.88%
|
|
University of Lahore
7 publications, 0.88%
|
|
University of Calcutta
7 publications, 0.88%
|
|
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics India
7 publications, 0.88%
|
|
University of Maragheh
7 publications, 0.88%
|
|
Amity University, Noida
7 publications, 0.88%
|
|
Nanjing Agricultural University
7 publications, 0.88%
|
|
Huazhong Agricultural University
7 publications, 0.88%
|
|
Sanya University
7 publications, 0.88%
|
|
Texas Tech University
7 publications, 0.88%
|
|
Bangladesh Agricultural University
7 publications, 0.88%
|
|
University of Tehran
6 publications, 0.75%
|
|
Abdul Wali Khan University
6 publications, 0.75%
|
|
University of Hyderabad
6 publications, 0.75%
|
|
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
6 publications, 0.75%
|
|
Rural Development Administration
6 publications, 0.75%
|
|
Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, Chinese Academy of Sciences
6 publications, 0.75%
|
|
University of Seville
6 publications, 0.75%
|
|
Universidade Estadual Paulista
6 publications, 0.75%
|
|
Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural University
6 publications, 0.75%
|
|
Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University
5 publications, 0.63%
|
|
Taif University
5 publications, 0.63%
|
|
University of Delhi
5 publications, 0.63%
|
|
Muhammad Nawaz Sharif University of Agriculture
5 publications, 0.63%
|
|
Hubei University
5 publications, 0.63%
|
|
University of Naples Federico II
5 publications, 0.63%
|
|
Shenzhen University
5 publications, 0.63%
|
|
Jiangsu University
5 publications, 0.63%
|
|
Yangzhou University
5 publications, 0.63%
|
|
Linyi University
5 publications, 0.63%
|
|
Henan University
5 publications, 0.63%
|
|
Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences
5 publications, 0.63%
|
|
University of São Paulo
5 publications, 0.63%
|
|
King Abdullah University of Science and Technology
4 publications, 0.5%
|
|
University of Sharjah
4 publications, 0.5%
|
|
Isfahan University of Technology
4 publications, 0.5%
|
|
University of Tabriz
4 publications, 0.5%
|
|
University of Okara
4 publications, 0.5%
|
|
Guru Nanak Dev University
4 publications, 0.5%
|
|
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences
4 publications, 0.5%
|
|
Cyprus University of Technology
4 publications, 0.5%
|
|
Centurion University of Technology and Management
4 publications, 0.5%
|
|
Northeast Forestry University
4 publications, 0.5%
|
|
Northeast Agricultural University
4 publications, 0.5%
|
|
Guizhou University
4 publications, 0.5%
|
|
Kyungpook National University
4 publications, 0.5%
|
|
University of Porto
4 publications, 0.5%
|
|
University of Florida
4 publications, 0.5%
|
|
Mississippi State University
4 publications, 0.5%
|
|
King Khalid University
3 publications, 0.38%
|
|
University of Hail
3 publications, 0.38%
|
|
United Arab Emirates University
3 publications, 0.38%
|
|
Panjab University
3 publications, 0.38%
|
|
Ferdowsi University of Mashhad
3 publications, 0.38%
|
|
Chandigarh University
3 publications, 0.38%
|
|
Kerala Agricultural University
3 publications, 0.38%
|
|
University of Jammu
3 publications, 0.38%
|
|
Jamia Hamdard
3 publications, 0.38%
|
|
Punjab Agricultural University
3 publications, 0.38%
|
|
Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz
3 publications, 0.38%
|
|
University of Karachi
3 publications, 0.38%
|
|
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University
3 publications, 0.38%
|
|
Banasthali Vidyapith
3 publications, 0.38%
|
|
University of Calicut
3 publications, 0.38%
|
|
Zanjan University
3 publications, 0.38%
|
|
Central University of Punjab
3 publications, 0.38%
|
|
Maulana Azad National Urdu University
3 publications, 0.38%
|
|
Amity University, Jaipur
3 publications, 0.38%
|
|
GLA University
3 publications, 0.38%
|
|
Igdir University
3 publications, 0.38%
|
|
University of Liège
3 publications, 0.38%
|
|
Gauhati University
3 publications, 0.38%
|
|
Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University
3 publications, 0.38%
|
|
Beijing Forestry University
3 publications, 0.38%
|
|
Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University
3 publications, 0.38%
|
|
Guangdong Ocean University
3 publications, 0.38%
|
|
Cairo University
3 publications, 0.38%
|
|
University of Brescia
3 publications, 0.38%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
5
10
15
20
25
|
Publishing countries
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
|
|
India
|
India, 127, 15.88%
India
127 publications, 15.88%
|
China
|
China, 111, 13.88%
China
111 publications, 13.88%
|
Pakistan
|
Pakistan, 57, 7.13%
Pakistan
57 publications, 7.13%
|
Saudi Arabia
|
Saudi Arabia, 42, 5.25%
Saudi Arabia
42 publications, 5.25%
|
USA
|
USA, 37, 4.63%
USA
37 publications, 4.63%
|
Iran
|
Iran, 30, 3.75%
Iran
30 publications, 3.75%
|
Bangladesh
|
Bangladesh, 24, 3%
Bangladesh
24 publications, 3%
|
Brazil
|
Brazil, 24, 3%
Brazil
24 publications, 3%
|
Egypt
|
Egypt, 22, 2.75%
Egypt
22 publications, 2.75%
|
Italy
|
Italy, 22, 2.75%
Italy
22 publications, 2.75%
|
Australia
|
Australia, 15, 1.88%
Australia
15 publications, 1.88%
|
Spain
|
Spain, 15, 1.88%
Spain
15 publications, 1.88%
|
Japan
|
Japan, 15, 1.88%
Japan
15 publications, 1.88%
|
Germany
|
Germany, 13, 1.63%
Germany
13 publications, 1.63%
|
Republic of Korea
|
Republic of Korea, 13, 1.63%
Republic of Korea
13 publications, 1.63%
|
Turkey
|
Turkey, 11, 1.38%
Turkey
11 publications, 1.38%
|
Canada
|
Canada, 10, 1.25%
Canada
10 publications, 1.25%
|
Hungary
|
Hungary, 8, 1%
Hungary
8 publications, 1%
|
Mexico
|
Mexico, 8, 1%
Mexico
8 publications, 1%
|
France
|
France, 7, 0.88%
France
7 publications, 0.88%
|
South Africa
|
South Africa, 7, 0.88%
South Africa
7 publications, 0.88%
|
Russia
|
Russia, 6, 0.75%
Russia
6 publications, 0.75%
|
Malaysia
|
Malaysia, 6, 0.75%
Malaysia
6 publications, 0.75%
|
Morocco
|
Morocco, 6, 0.75%
Morocco
6 publications, 0.75%
|
UAE
|
UAE, 6, 0.75%
UAE
6 publications, 0.75%
|
Slovakia
|
Slovakia, 5, 0.63%
Slovakia
5 publications, 0.63%
|
Tunisia
|
Tunisia, 5, 0.63%
Tunisia
5 publications, 0.63%
|
Portugal
|
Portugal, 4, 0.5%
Portugal
4 publications, 0.5%
|
Belgium
|
Belgium, 4, 0.5%
Belgium
4 publications, 0.5%
|
United Kingdom
|
United Kingdom, 4, 0.5%
United Kingdom
4 publications, 0.5%
|
Israel
|
Israel, 4, 0.5%
Israel
4 publications, 0.5%
|
Cyprus
|
Cyprus, 4, 0.5%
Cyprus
4 publications, 0.5%
|
Thailand
|
Thailand, 4, 0.5%
Thailand
4 publications, 0.5%
|
Sweden
|
Sweden, 4, 0.5%
Sweden
4 publications, 0.5%
|
Argentina
|
Argentina, 3, 0.38%
Argentina
3 publications, 0.38%
|
Greece
|
Greece, 3, 0.38%
Greece
3 publications, 0.38%
|
Colombia
|
Colombia, 3, 0.38%
Colombia
3 publications, 0.38%
|
Nigeria
|
Nigeria, 3, 0.38%
Nigeria
3 publications, 0.38%
|
Ghana
|
Ghana, 2, 0.25%
Ghana
2 publications, 0.25%
|
Ireland
|
Ireland, 2, 0.25%
Ireland
2 publications, 0.25%
|
Romania
|
Romania, 2, 0.25%
Romania
2 publications, 0.25%
|
Czech Republic
|
Czech Republic, 2, 0.25%
Czech Republic
2 publications, 0.25%
|
Ethiopia
|
Ethiopia, 2, 0.25%
Ethiopia
2 publications, 0.25%
|
Kazakhstan
|
Kazakhstan, 1, 0.13%
Kazakhstan
1 publication, 0.13%
|
Ukraine
|
Ukraine, 1, 0.13%
Ukraine
1 publication, 0.13%
|
Estonia
|
Estonia, 1, 0.13%
Estonia
1 publication, 0.13%
|
Austria
|
Austria, 1, 0.13%
Austria
1 publication, 0.13%
|
Armenia
|
Armenia, 1, 0.13%
Armenia
1 publication, 0.13%
|
Bulgaria
|
Bulgaria, 1, 0.13%
Bulgaria
1 publication, 0.13%
|
Botswana
|
Botswana, 1, 0.13%
Botswana
1 publication, 0.13%
|
Venezuela
|
Venezuela, 1, 0.13%
Venezuela
1 publication, 0.13%
|
Vietnam
|
Vietnam, 1, 0.13%
Vietnam
1 publication, 0.13%
|
Denmark
|
Denmark, 1, 0.13%
Denmark
1 publication, 0.13%
|
Zimbabwe
|
Zimbabwe, 1, 0.13%
Zimbabwe
1 publication, 0.13%
|
Indonesia
|
Indonesia, 1, 0.13%
Indonesia
1 publication, 0.13%
|
Jordan
|
Jordan, 1, 0.13%
Jordan
1 publication, 0.13%
|
Iceland
|
Iceland, 1, 0.13%
Iceland
1 publication, 0.13%
|
Cameroon
|
Cameroon, 1, 0.13%
Cameroon
1 publication, 0.13%
|
Kenya
|
Kenya, 1, 0.13%
Kenya
1 publication, 0.13%
|
Lebanon
|
Lebanon, 1, 0.13%
Lebanon
1 publication, 0.13%
|
Nepal
|
Nepal, 1, 0.13%
Nepal
1 publication, 0.13%
|
New Zealand
|
New Zealand, 1, 0.13%
New Zealand
1 publication, 0.13%
|
Oman
|
Oman, 1, 0.13%
Oman
1 publication, 0.13%
|
Papua New Guinea
|
Papua New Guinea, 1, 0.13%
Papua New Guinea
1 publication, 0.13%
|
Poland
|
Poland, 1, 0.13%
Poland
1 publication, 0.13%
|
Sudan
|
Sudan, 1, 0.13%
Sudan
1 publication, 0.13%
|
Tanzania
|
Tanzania, 1, 0.13%
Tanzania
1 publication, 0.13%
|
Uzbekistan
|
Uzbekistan, 1, 0.13%
Uzbekistan
1 publication, 0.13%
|
Uruguay
|
Uruguay, 1, 0.13%
Uruguay
1 publication, 0.13%
|
Chile
|
Chile, 1, 0.13%
Chile
1 publication, 0.13%
|
Sri Lanka
|
Sri Lanka, 1, 0.13%
Sri Lanka
1 publication, 0.13%
|
Ecuador
|
Ecuador, 1, 0.13%
Ecuador
1 publication, 0.13%
|
Kosovo
|
Kosovo, 1, 0.13%
Kosovo
1 publication, 0.13%
|
Show all (43 more) | |
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
|