Expert Reviews in Molecular Medicine

37.7k citations
688 papers · · active since 2016

Impact in

  • Immunology top 10%
    • Immune Cell Function and Interaction
    • Galectins and Cancer Biology
    • Epigenetics and DNA Methylation
    • RNA Interference and Gene Delivery
    • RNA modifications and cancer

Papers in

    • Immunotherapy and Immune Responses 26
    • Immune Cell Function and Interaction 23
    • T-cell and B-cell Immunology 21
    • Cancer-related molecular mechanisms research 17

Expert Reviews in Molecular Medicine

656 papers receiving 36.5k citations

Peers

Expert Reviews in Molecular Medicine
Comparison fields: 5 of 197
  • Immunology 4.6k
  • Molecular Biology 14.5k
  • Biological Psychiatry 492
  • Cancer Research 2.6k
  • Rehabilitation 1.1k
Replace Essays in Biochemistry with:
Essays in Biochemistry United Kingdom
Critical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory Sciences United States
Journal of Inflammation United States
Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis Poland
Cell Adhesion & Migration United States
Journal of Innate Immunity United States
Journal of Molecular Cell Biology China
Advances in clinical chemistry United States
Seminars in Immunopathology United States
Critical Reviews in Immunology United States
Expert Reviews in Molecular Medicine relative to Essays in Biochemistry United Kingdom Essays in Biochemistry's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×1.5×2.2×
Essays in Biochemistry · 1×
Citations per year

Countries where authors publish in Expert Reviews in Molecular Medicine

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Expert Reviews in Molecular Medicine. 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 Expert Reviews in Molecular Medicine with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Expert Reviews in Molecular Medicine more than expected).

Fields of papers published in Expert Reviews in Molecular Medicine

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers published in Expert Reviews in Molecular Medicine. 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 Expert Reviews in Molecular Medicine.

About Expert Reviews in Molecular Medicine

The 688 papers published in Expert Reviews in Molecular Medicine in the last decades have received a total of 37.7k indexed citations . Papers published in Expert Reviews in Molecular Medicine usually cover Immunology (108 papers), Cancer Research (66 papers), Oncology (109 papers), Molecular Biology (298 papers) and Genetics (91 papers) specifically the topics of Epigenetics and DNA Methylation (32 papers), Immunotherapy and Immune Responses (26 papers), RNA Interference and Gene Delivery (26 papers), Virus-based gene therapy research (25 papers), Immune Cell Function and Interaction (23 papers), T-cell and B-cell Immunology (21 papers), CRISPR and Genetic Engineering (18 papers) and Cancer-related molecular mechanisms research (17 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Expert Reviews in Molecular Medicine are Timothy Jon Koh, Luisa Ann DiPietro, Nicola J. Curtin, Evanthia Diamanti‐Kandarakis, Ri‐Yao Yang, Gabriel Adrian Rabinovich, Fu‐Tong Liu, Thomas Gasser, Ben Ho Park and Abde M. Abukhdeir.

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.

Explore journals with similar magnitude of impact