Daniel K. Gardner

23 papers receiving 205 citations

Peers

Daniel K. Gardner
Comparison fields: 5 of 68
  • Cultural Studies 79
  • Religious studies 29
  • Sociology and Political Science 232
  • Classics 14
  • Anthropology 31
Replace John Makeham with:
John Makeham Australia
Antony Easthope United States
Itamar Even‐Zohar Israel
Diane Long Hoeveler United States
Eric Hayot South Korea
Charles Robert Ageron
Judith Still United Kingdom
Jennifer L. Fleissner United States
Clifford Siskin United States
Rachel Blau DuPlessis United States
Daniel K. Gardner relative to John Makeham Australia John Makeham's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×3.3×
John Makeham · 1×
Citations per year

Countries citing papers authored by Daniel K. Gardner

Since Specialization
Citations

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

Fields of papers citing papers by Daniel K. Gardner

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers produced by Daniel K. Gardner. 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 Daniel K. Gardner. The network helps show where Daniel K. Gardner may publish in the future.

Co-authors

The 22 scholars most cited alongside Daniel K. Gardner, 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 Daniel K. Gardner Line = papers co-authored together Daniel K. Gardner links everyone, so they are left out of the graph.

All Works

20 of 20 papers shown

Showing the 20 most-cited of 38 papers — load more, or switch the sort, to bring in the rest.

#Work
1
The Four Books: The Basic Teachings of the Later Confucian Tradition
200770
2 201442
3 200329
4 198626
5 199525
6 199124
7 198623
8 199821
9 197817
10 198915
11 199611
12 202111
13 20225
14 19865
15 20183
16 20052
17 19842
18
Environmental Pollution in China: What Everyone Needs to Know®
20182
19 19952
20
Institutes of international law, public and private, as settled by the Supreme Court of the United States, and by our republic
19951

About Daniel K. Gardner

Daniel K. Gardner is a scholar working on Sociology and Political Science, Cultural Studies, Law, Political Science and International Relations and Urban Studies, having authored 38 papers that have together received 341 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Chinese history and philosophy (12 papers), Japanese History and Culture (5 papers), International Law and Human Rights (2 papers), International Law and Aviation (2 papers), Criminal Law and Evidence (2 papers), Indian and Buddhist Studies (1 paper), Asian Culture and Media Studies (1 paper) and Insurance and Financial Risk Management (1 paper). The work is most often cited by research in Cultural Studies (79 citations), Religious studies (29 citations), Sociology and Political Science (232 citations), Classics (14 citations) and Anthropology (31 citations). Daniel K. Gardner has collaborated with scholars based in Canada, United States and Italy. Frequent co-authors include Edward Slingerland, Tu Weiming, Bryan Dosono, François Blais, Marisol Wong-Villacrés, Adriana Alvarado Garcia, Jaye Nias, Denae Ford, Carol F. Scott and Ron Eglash. Their work appears in journals such as The Journal of Asian Studies, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, interactions, Philosophy East and West and JAMA.

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