Current Opinion in Neurobiology

3.9k papers and 323.1k indexed citations i.

About

The 3.9k papers published in Current Opinion in Neurobiology in the last decades have received a total of 323.1k indexed citations. Papers published in Current Opinion in Neurobiology usually cover Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience (2.0k papers), Cognitive Neuroscience (1.5k papers) and Molecular Biology (1.3k papers) specifically the topics of Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research (937 papers), Neural dynamics and brain function (884 papers) and Neurobiology and Insect Physiology Research (466 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Current Opinion in Neurobiology are Mark L. Mayer, Ralph Adolphs, AD Craig, Mitsuo Kawato, Wolfram Schultz, Pascal Fries, Michael E. Hasselmo, John P. O’Doherty, David R. Kaplan and Andreas K. Engel.

In The Last Decade

Fields of papers published in Current Opinion in Neurobiology

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers published in Current Opinion in Neurobiology. 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 Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

Countries where authors publish in Current Opinion in Neurobiology

Since Specialization
Citations

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