Clive Scott

1000 citations
73 papers · 400 · h-index 11

Impact in

Papers in

Clive Scott

47 papers receiving 296 citations

Peers

Clive Scott
Comparison fields: 5 of 70
  • Literature and Literary Theory 119
  • Language and Linguistics 109
  • Visual Arts and Performing Arts 36
  • Classics 22
  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology 43
Replace Marc Silberman with:
Marc Silberman United States
Zohar Shavit Israel
Jean Alter United States
Knut Hickethier Germany
Douwe Fokkema Netherlands
Adam James Smith United Kingdom
G. Thomas Tanselle United States
Mary Ann Caws United States
Michael Jones Australia
Robin Wells United Kingdom
Clive Scott relative to Marc Silberman United States Marc Silberman's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×4.8×
Marc Silberman · 1×
Citations per year

Countries citing papers authored by Clive Scott

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of Clive Scott'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 Clive Scott with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Clive Scott more than expected).

Fields of papers citing papers by Clive Scott

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers produced by Clive Scott. 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 Clive Scott. The network helps show where Clive Scott may publish in the future.

Co-authors

The 5 scholars most cited alongside Clive Scott, linked wherever they have co-authored with each other. Click a name or a connecting line to browse the papers they share.

Border = papers with Clive Scott Line = papers co-authored together Clive Scott links everyone, so they are left out of the graph.

All Works

20 of 20 papers shown

Showing the 20 most-cited of 73 papers — load more, or switch the sort, to bring in the rest.

#Work
1
Literary Translation and the Rediscovery of Reading
201249
2
The Spoken Image: Photography and Language
199947
3 199037
4 201124
5 200724
6
Translating the Perception of Text: Literary Translation and Phenomenology
201223
7 201820
8 201117
9 198616
10
Translating the Literary: Genetic Criticism, Text Theory and Poetry
200610
11 201010
12 20159
13 20068
14
Street Photography: From Atget to Cartier-Bresson
20078
15 19927
16 20117
17 19977
18 20187
19 20076
20 20116

About Clive Scott

Clive Scott is a scholar working on Literature and Literary Theory, Language and Linguistics, Classics, Anthropology and History, having authored 73 papers that have together received 400 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include French Literature and Poetry (15 papers), Translation Studies and Practices (10 papers), Renaissance Literature and Culture (6 papers), Historical and Literary Studies (6 papers), Medieval European Literature and History (6 papers), Photography and Visual Culture (5 papers), Language, Metaphor, and Cognition (4 papers) and Linguistics and Discourse Analysis (4 papers). The work is most often cited by research in Literature and Literary Theory (119 citations), Language and Linguistics (109 citations), Visual Arts and Performing Arts (36 citations), Classics (22 citations) and Experimental and Cognitive Psychology (43 citations). Clive Scott has collaborated with scholars based in United Kingdom, United States and France. Frequent co-authors include Mats Lundahl, Jean Brun, Jean-Pierre Brun, Robert Hopkins and Anastasia Sotiropoulou. Their work appears in journals such as The Modern Language Review, French Studies, Notes and Queries, Orbis Litterarum and The Translator.

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 authors with similar magnitude of impact