Phil Booth

429 citations
20 papers · 194 · h-index 8

Impact in

  • Classics top 5%
    • Byzantine Studies and History
    • Medieval Literature and History
  • Archeology top 5%
    • Archaeology and Historical Studies
    • Historical, Religious, and Philosophical Studies
    • Ancient Mediterranean Archaeology and History

Papers in

    • Byzantine Studies and History 13
    • Medieval Literature and History 3
    • Archaeology and Historical Studies 7

Phil Booth

12 papers receiving 94 citations

Peers

Phil Booth
Comparison fields: 5 of 35
  • Classics 139
  • Archeology 82
  • History 80
  • Anthropology 70
  • Religious studies 9
Replace Frederick S. Paxton with:
Frederick S. Paxton United States
Dirk Krausmüller Austria
Bruno Bleckmann United States
Cristina La Rocca Italy
Stratis Papaioannou United States
Rita Lizzi Italy
Bernard Flusin Canada
Marc D. Lauxtermann United Kingdom
Benet Salway United Kingdom
Johannes Wienand Germany
Phil Booth relative to Frederick S. Paxton United States Frederick S. Paxton's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×10×15×18.5×
Frederick S. Paxton · 1×
Citations per year

Countries citing papers authored by Phil Booth

Since Specialization
Citations

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

Fields of papers citing papers by Phil Booth

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

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

Co-authors

The 5 scholars most cited alongside Phil Booth, 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 Phil Booth Line = papers co-authored together Phil Booth links everyone, so they are left out of the graph.

All Works

20 of 20 papers shown
#Work
1 201462
2 201349
3 201017
4 201116
5 201314
6 20158
7 20118
8 20157
9 20175
10 20192
11 20112
12 20132
13 20091
14 20111
15 20190
16 20130
17 20210
18 20170
19 20200
20 20110

About Phil Booth

Phil Booth is a scholar working on Classics, Archeology, Anthropology, History and Sociology and Political Science, having authored 20 papers that have together received 194 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Byzantine Studies and History (13 papers), Archaeology and Historical Studies (7 papers), Historical and Religious Studies of Rome (6 papers), Classical Antiquity Studies (4 papers), Medieval Literature and History (3 papers), Eurasian Exchange Networks (3 papers), Historical and Linguistic Studies (3 papers) and Historical and Archaeological Studies (2 papers). The work is most often cited by research in Classics (139 citations), Archeology (82 citations), History (80 citations), Anthropology (70 citations) and Religious studies (9 citations). Phil Booth has collaborated with scholars based in United Kingdom and United States. Frequent co-authors include Catherine Cubitt, Richard Price, David Booth, Peter Sarris and Bronwen Neil. Their work appears in journals such as Byzantinische Zeitschrift, The Journal of Ecclesiastical History, Appetite, The Journal of Theological Studies and Studies in Church History.

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