Research ArticleInformation Research CommunicationsVol. 3 | Issue 1 | 2026 | pp. 53–63Open access
Productivity, Impact, and Collaboration Patterns in Indian Nanocellulose Research for Biomedical Applications: A Bibliometric Perspective
- 1*,
- 2,
- 2,
- 3,
- 3
- 1 Department of Library and Information Science, GM University, Davangere, Karnataka, INDIA.
- 2 Department of Pharmaceutics, GM Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research, Davangere, Karnataka, INDIA.
- 3 Department of Pharmacology, GM Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research, Davanagere, Karnataka, INDIA.
Published in Information Research Communications
Correspondence: S Madhu
Department of Library and Information Science, GM University, Davangere, Karnataka, INDIA.
Email: madhu.rey24@gmail.com
Copyright: © 2026 Manuscript Technomedia LLP. This is an open access article.
- Published:
- Jan 1, 2026
- Received:
- Nov 17, 2025
- Accepted:
- Mar 25, 2026
- DOI:
- 10.5530/irc.3.1.6
How to cite
Madhu, S., Pradeep, H. K., Chandragirivar, P. C., Damani, M. Y. M., & Anusha, B. N. (2026). Productivity, Impact, and Collaboration Patterns in Indian Nanocellulose Research for Biomedical Applications: A Bibliometric Perspective. Information Research Communications, 3(1), 53–63. https://doi.org/10.5530/irc.3.1.6
Abstract
Background/Aim
This study presents a bibliometric analysis of Indian research on nanocellulose for biomedical applications based on 692 Scopus-indexed publications produced between 2010 and 2025.
Methodology
Data were retrieved from the Scopus database and analysed using key bibliometric indicators, including Total Publications (TP), Total Citations (TC), Citations Per Paper (CPP), authorship patterns, and institutional productivity. Microsoft Excel was used for statistical analysis, while VOSviewer visualised thematic structures and collaboration networks.
Results
The 692 publications accumulated 23,812 citations (CPP 34.41). While 2010–2018 contributed 13.29% of output, it received 9,333 citations, indicating strong foundational influence. Peak productivity occurred in 2025 (21.53%). Journal articles (46.10%) were the primary output, but review papers (25.00%) attracted the highest citations. Thomas P. Sabu was the most productive author, and Mahatma Gandhi University, Kerala, led in institutional productivity.
Discussion
Keyword mapping revealed major clusters around nanocellulose materials, characterisation techniques, and biomedical applications such as drug delivery, tissue engineering, and wound healing.
Conclusion
The analysis identifies significant contributors and thematic hotspots, providing a structured overview to inform subsequent inquiries and policy-level interventions in this evolving domain.
Keywords
Subject
Article metadata
| Title | Productivity, Impact, and Collaboration Patterns in Indian Nanocellulose Research for Biomedical Applications: A Bibliometric Perspective |
|---|---|
| Authors | S Madhu; H K Pradeep; Pratiksha C Chandragirivar; Mohammad Yosuf Malik Damani; B N Anusha |
| Affiliations | Department of Library and Information Science, GM University, Davangere, Karnataka, INDIA.; Department of Pharmaceutics, GM Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research, Davangere, Karnataka, INDIA.; Department of Pharmacology, GM Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research, Davanagere, Karnataka, INDIA. |
| Corresponding author | madhu.rey24@gmail.com |
| Journal | Information Research Communications |
| Volume / Issue | Vol. 3, Issue 1 (2026) |
Also in this issue
- Redefining India’s Foreign Policy in the 21st Century: A Bibliometric Analysis of Scholarly Trendspp. 1–8
- From Teenage Inventor to Scientist: Scientometric Profiling of an Indian-American Scientist, Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai’s Research Outputpp. 9–25
- Bibliometric Analysis of the Journal of Global Postcolonial Studies, 1997-2024: Publication Trends and Citation Patternspp. 26–33
- Global Landscape of Retracted Publications in Data Science: A Bibliometric Analysis (1993-2025)pp. 34–41
- The Synergy Effect: How Funding and Open Access Amplify Research Citations in Emerging Universitiespp. 42–52