Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery

1.8k papers and 45.7k indexed citations i.

About

The 1.8k papers published in Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery in the last decades have received a total of 45.7k indexed citations. Papers published in Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery usually cover Molecular Biology (939 papers), Computational Theory and Mathematics (399 papers) and Oncology (212 papers) specifically the topics of Computational Drug Discovery Methods (399 papers), Monoclonal and Polyclonal Antibodies Research (122 papers) and Receptor Mechanisms and Signaling (117 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery are Samuel Genheden, Ulf Ryde, Claudiu T. Supuran, Michael J. Waring, Sonia Lobo Planey, Kunal Roy, Gervais Bérubé, John A. Arnott, Anton Simeonov and George L. Trainor.

In The Last Decade

Fields of papers published in Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers published in Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery. 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 Opinion on Drug Discovery.

Countries where authors publish in Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery

Since Specialization
Citations

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

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

Rankless by CCL
2025