Nature reviews. Neuroscience

2.7k papers and 682.1k indexed citations i.

About

The 2.7k papers published in Nature reviews. Neuroscience in the last decades have received a total of 682.1k indexed citations. Papers published in Nature reviews. Neuroscience usually cover Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience (1.0k papers), Cognitive Neuroscience (1.0k papers) and Molecular Biology (759 papers) specifically the topics of Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research (538 papers), Neural dynamics and brain function (414 papers) and Memory and Neural Mechanisms (277 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Nature reviews. Neuroscience are Edward T. Bullmore, Olaf Sporns, Gordon L. Shulman, Maurizio Corbetta, Agnella Craig, Karl Friston, Eric J. Nestler, Alan Baddeley, Christof Koch and Michael Fox.

In The Last Decade

Fields of papers published in Nature reviews. Neuroscience

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers published in Nature reviews. Neuroscience. 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 Nature reviews. Neuroscience.

Countries where authors publish in Nature reviews. Neuroscience

Since Specialization
Citations

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