Expert Opinion on Orphan Drugs

612 papers and 3.4k indexed citations i.

About

The 612 papers published in Expert Opinion on Orphan Drugs in the last decades have received a total of 3.4k indexed citations. Papers published in Expert Opinion on Orphan Drugs usually cover Molecular Biology (203 papers), Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine (113 papers) and Genetics (91 papers) specifically the topics of Lysosomal Storage Disorders Research (44 papers), Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life (38 papers) and Genomics and Rare Diseases (33 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Expert Opinion on Orphan Drugs are Chaomei Chen, Meen Chul Kim, Palle Bekker Jeppesen, M. Ian Phillips, Thomas Kirkegaard, Ida Annunziata, Marco Castori, Alessandra d’Azzo, William B. Rizzo and Robert E. MacLaren.

In The Last Decade

Fields of papers published in Expert Opinion on Orphan Drugs

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers published in Expert Opinion on Orphan Drugs. 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 Orphan Drugs.

Countries where authors publish in Expert Opinion on Orphan Drugs

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Expert Opinion on Orphan Drugs. 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 Orphan Drugs 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 Orphan Drugs 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