Ruth Leys

3.3k citations
37 papers · 1.9k · 1 hit paper · h-index 14

Impact in

Papers in

Ruth Leys

34 papers receiving 1.3k citations

Ruth Leys's Hit Papers

The Turn to Affect: A Critique 2011 · 617 citations
6170+5+10Years since publication200400600

Peers

Ruth Leys
Comparison fields: 5 of 106
  • General Psychology 97
  • Cultural Studies 245
  • History 282
  • Social Psychology 499
  • Literature and Literary Theory 282
Replace Lisa Blackman with:
Lisa Blackman United Kingdom
Hazel E. Barnes South Africa
Shoshana Felman United States
Cathy Caruth United States
Deborah P. Britzman Canada
Robert A. Nye United States
Bruce Fink United States
Robert Bernasconi United States
Robert J. Stoller United States
Kelly Oliver United States
Ruth Leys relative to Lisa Blackman United Kingdom Lisa Blackman's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×2×3×3.8×
Lisa Blackman · 1×
Citations per year

Countries citing papers authored by Ruth Leys

Since Specialization
Citations

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

Fields of papers citing papers by Ruth Leys

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

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

Co-authors

The 3 scholars most cited alongside Ruth Leys, 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 Ruth Leys Line = papers co-authored together Ruth Leys links everyone, so they are left out of the graph.

All Works

20 of 20 papers shown

Showing the 20 most-cited of 37 papers — load more, or switch the sort, to bring in the rest.

#Work
1
The Turn to Affect: A Critique
Hit paper breakdown →
2011617
2 2000362
3
Trauma: A Genealogy
2000300
4 201778
5 200971
6 199171
7 199468
8
The Ascent of Affect: Genealogy and Critique
201744
9 199339
10 201033
11 201127
12 199118
13 198416
14
From sympathy to reflex : Marshall Hall and his opponents
199013
15 201013
16 198112
17 200112
18 201010
19 202010
20 20129

About Ruth Leys

Ruth Leys is a scholar working on Social Psychology, Clinical Psychology, Sociology and Political Science, General Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience, having authored 37 papers that have together received 1.9k indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications (8 papers), Emotions and Moral Behavior (5 papers), Academic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology (5 papers), Action Observation and Synchronization (3 papers), Torture, Ethics, and Law (2 papers), Face Recognition and Perception (2 papers), Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment (2 papers) and Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics (1 paper). The work is most often cited by research in General Psychology (97 citations), Cultural Studies (245 citations), History (282 citations), Social Psychology (499 citations) and Literature and Literary Theory (282 citations). Ruth Leys has collaborated with scholars based in United States. Frequent co-authors include Marlene Goldman, William Ian Miller and Rand B. Evans. Their work appears in journals such as Critical Inquiry, Representations, Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, The American Historical Review and Science in Context.

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