The dissertation deals with the identification of publication characteristics in the fields of forestry, wood and paper science. All three fields are considered part of biotechnological sciences according the Slovenian Research Agency classification. The publication characteristics were analyzed on the basis of the publications of all currently active research groups from these fields in Slovenia (n = 15) during the period 2005-2017, which differ significantly depending on the organization (independent research organizations, faculty units or company departments). The publication data were obtained from the SICRIS system and three Web of Science (WoS) citation indexes. Data collection was limited by several methodological dilemmas related to changes in the composition of research groups over the years and inconsistent listing of affiliation in the articles indexed in the WoS. The results demonstrate differences between the selected research groups, research organizations and selected fields. There are major differences in the size of the groups, which is logically reflected in the number of publications. The type of research organization and the proportion of its research, teaching and entrepreneurial activity have a significant influence on the number and type of publications. Scientific articles by researchers in the field of forestry indexed in the WoS categories of agricultural and natural sciences are equally represented. The most common WoS categorization in the field of wood sciences is technical and technological sciences. However, a considerable proportion of publications are assigned to natural and agricultural sciences. In the field of paper sciences, journals are usually classified in the WoS category of technical sciences. When promoting their research work and research organization, researchers make insufficient use of modern communication channels and social networks, use too few international identifiers for the registration of personal names (e.g. WoS Researcher ID, Scopus Author Identifier, ORCID), do not provide uniform information about their affiliation and overlook the requirements for naming funding organizations. The results are useful for all those involved in the process of research and research communication: researchers, publishers, funding organizations and evaluators of research, and librarians.