Pilot and Feasibility Studies

1.4k papers and 9.7k indexed citations i.

About

The 1.4k papers published in Pilot and Feasibility Studies in the last decades have received a total of 9.7k indexed citations. Papers published in Pilot and Feasibility Studies usually cover General Health Professions (308 papers), Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health (249 papers) and Clinical Psychology (245 papers) specifically the topics of Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet (90 papers), Physical Activity and Health (86 papers) and Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life (74 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Pilot and Feasibility Studies are Gillian Lancaster, Lucy Yardley, Alicia O’Cathain, Pat Hoddinott, Julius Sim, Emily Arden‐Close, Ben Ainsworth, Ingrid Müller, Lehana Thabane and Katrina Turner.

In The Last Decade

Fields of papers published in Pilot and Feasibility Studies

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers published in Pilot and Feasibility Studies. 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 Pilot and Feasibility Studies.

Countries where authors publish in Pilot and Feasibility Studies

Since Specialization
Citations

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