Countries where authors publish in Clinical Proteomics
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Clinical Proteomics. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by papers published in Clinical Proteomics with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Clinical Proteomics more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers published in Clinical Proteomics. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers published in Clinical Proteomics.
About Clinical Proteomics
The 622 papers published in Clinical Proteomics in the last decades have received a total of 11.8k indexed citations . Papers published in Clinical Proteomics usually cover Spectroscopy (126 papers), Molecular Biology (171 papers), Nephrology (12 papers), Cancer Research (23 papers) and Reproductive Medicine (12 papers) specifically the topics of Advanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications (123 papers), Glycosylation and Glycoproteins Research (49 papers), Mass Spectrometry Techniques and Applications (39 papers), Metabolomics and Mass Spectrometry Studies (27 papers), Monoclonal and Polyclonal Antibodies Research (14 papers), Advanced Biosensing Techniques and Applications (13 papers), Extracellular vesicles in disease (13 papers) and Machine Learning in Bioinformatics (10 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Clinical Proteomics are Daniel W. Chan, Gerald W. Hart, Alemayehu Godana Birhanu, Daniel W. Chan, Junfeng Ma, Danni Li, Thomas Kislinger, Anna K. Füzéry, Maria Chan and Joshua D. Levin.
Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive
bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global
research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include
incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and
delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in
Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.