Expert Review of Proteomics

1.2k papers and 29.4k indexed citations i.

About

The 1.2k papers published in Expert Review of Proteomics in the last decades have received a total of 29.4k indexed citations. Papers published in Expert Review of Proteomics usually cover Molecular Biology (826 papers), Spectroscopy (530 papers) and Physiology (112 papers) specifically the topics of Advanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications (502 papers), Mass Spectrometry Techniques and Applications (221 papers) and Metabolomics and Mass Spectrometry Studies (180 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Expert Review of Proteomics are Richard J. Simpson, Juan J. Calvete, Robert L. Moritz, Suresh Mathivanan, Yetrib Hathout, David J. Harvey, Linfeng Wu, Aldrin V. Gomes, Terence Chuen Wai Poon and Kathryn S. Lilley.

In The Last Decade

Fields of papers published in Expert Review of Proteomics

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers published in Expert Review of Proteomics. 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 Review of Proteomics.

Countries where authors publish in Expert Review of Proteomics

Since Specialization
Citations

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