ReviewMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2017
Landscape of Research Areas for Zeolites and Metal-Organic Frameworks Using Computational Classification Based on Citation Networks.
Review in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- COACS omega · 2026Article
- Metal-Organic Frameworks for Wastewater Decontamination: Discovering Intellectual Structure and Research Trends.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Article
- Antibacterial Activity of Propolis-Embedded Zeolite Nanocomposites for Implant Application.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Biomedical Applications of Zeolitic Nanoparticles, with an Emphasis on Medical Interventions.International journal of nanomedicine · 2020Review
- CO₂ Capture with Mesoporous Silicas Modified with Amines by Double Functionalization: Assessment of Adsorption/Desorption Cycles.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The field of porous materials is widely spreading nowadays, and researchers need to read tremendous numbers of papers to obtain a "bird's eye" view of a given research area. However, it is difficult for researchers to obtain an objective database based on statistical data without any relation to subjective knowledge related to individual research interests. Here, citation network analysis was applied for a comparative analysis of the research areas for zeolites and metal-organic frameworks as examples for porous materials. The statistical and objective data contributed to the analysis of: (1) the computational screening of research areas; (2) classification of research stages to a certain domain; (3) "well-cited" research areas; and (4) research area preferences of specific countries. Moreover, we proposed a methodology to assist researchers to gain potential research ideas by reviewing related research areas, which is based on the detection of unfocused ideas in one area but focused in the other area by a bibliometric approach.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.