1. Bibliometric analysis of the biohybrid actuation field and few competing ones.
Bibliometric analysis of the biohybrid actuation field and few competing ones. (A) Papers published from 2006 to 2016 on biohybrid actuators divided in conference papers, journal papers with I.F. <4, journal papers with I.F. between 4 and 10, and journal papers with I.F. >10. The analysis was conducted on the Scopus database by using the following keywords in the title and abstract: “bio-hybrid actuator,” “biohybrid actuator,” “cell-based actuator,” “bioactuation,” “bacteria robot,” “muscle cell actuator,” “muscle-based actuator,” “biohybrid robot,” “bio-hybrid robot,” “biohybrid system,” “bio-hybrid system,” “biohybrid device,” and “bio-hybrid device” (from this list, only the papers closely dealing with bioactuation were then selected manually). (B) Journal papers published from 2006 to 2016 on smart materials–based and pneumatic actuators. The analysis was conducted on the Scopus database by using three different keywords (in title and abstract) for the three categories analyzed: “pneumatic actuator,” “shape memory alloy actuator,” and “electroactive polymer actuator.” (C) Percentage of journal papers with I.F. >4 with respect to the overall number of journal papers published in 2016 on biohybrid actuators, EAP, SMA, and pneumatic actuators.
Leonardo Ricotti et al. Sci. Robotics 2017;2:eaaq0495
Copyright © 2017 The Authors, some rights reserved; exclusive licensee American Association for the Advancement of Science. No claim to original U.S. Government Works