Hit papers significantly outperform the citation benchmark for their cohort. A paper qualifies
if it has ≥500 total citations, achieves ≥1.5× the top-1% citation threshold for papers in the
same subfield and year (this is the minimum needed to enter the top 1%, not the average
within it), or reaches the top citation threshold in at least one of its specific research
topics.
International Union of Pharmacology. XII. Classification of opioid receptors
1996553 citationsDhawan Bn, F. Cesselin et al.Pharmacological Reviewsprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
This map shows the geographic impact of P B Bradley's research. 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 P B Bradley with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites P B Bradley more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by P B Bradley. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers produced by P B Bradley. The network helps show where P B Bradley may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of P B Bradley
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of P B Bradley.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of P B Bradley based on the total number of
citations received by their joint publications. Widths of edges
represent the number of papers authors have co-authored together.
Node borders
signify the number of papers an author published with P B Bradley. P B Bradley is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
All Works
15 of 15 papers shown
1.
Bn, Dhawan, F. Cesselin, Ram Raghubir, et al.. (1996). International Union of Pharmacology. XII. Classification of opioid receptors. Pharmacological Reviews. 48(4). 567–592.553 indexed citations breakdown →
Bradley, P B & R.J. Gayton. (1976). Actions and interactions of morphine and dopamine on single neurones in the rat caudate nucleus [proceedings].. PubMed. 57(3). 425P–426P.4 indexed citations
8.
Bradley, P B, et al.. (1975). Proceedings: A stereospecific action of morphine on brain stem neuronal activity: a microiontophoretic study.. British Journal of Pharmacology. 53(3). 462.3 indexed citations
9.
Boakes, R.J., P B Bradley, & J.M. Candy. (1973). Proceedings: Antagonism of the effects of iontophoretically applied (+)-amphetamine by chlorpromazine on single neurones.. PubMed. 49(1). 175P–176P.1 indexed citations
10.
Bradley, P B & A. Dray. (1973). Actions and interactions of microiontophoretically applied morphine with transmitter substances on brain stem neurones.. PubMed. 47(3). 642P–642P.9 indexed citations
11.
Boakes, R.J., P B Bradley, & J.M. Candy. (1971). Supersensitivity of central noradrenaline receptors after reserpine.. PubMed. 43(2). 443P–444P.3 indexed citations
12.
Boakes, R.J., P B Bradley, Ian Briggs, & A. Dray. (1970). Effects of lysergic acid derivatives on 5-hydroxytryptamine excitation of brain stem neurones.. PubMed. 38(2). 453P–454P.4 indexed citations
Bradley, P B, et al.. (1953). On some effects of lysergic acid diethylamide (L.S.D. 25) in normal volunteers.. PubMed. 121(2). 50P–51P.14 indexed citations
15.
Bradley, P B & Joel Elkes. (1953). The effect of atropine, hyoscyamine, physostigmine and neostigmine on the electrical activity of the brain of the conscious cat.. PubMed. 120(1-2). 14P–15P.45 indexed citations
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.