William C. McDermott

612 citations
25 papers · 72 · h-index 5

Impact in

Papers in

    • Classical Antiquity Studies 13
    • Historical, Religious, and Philosophical Studies 3
    • Ancient and Medieval Archaeology Studies 1

William C. McDermott

18 papers receiving 45 citations

Peers

William C. McDermott
Comparison fields: 5 of 18
  • Anthropology 55
  • Classics 10
  • Archeology 24
  • History 16
  • Life-span and Life-course Studies 1
Replace G. M. Paul with:
G. M. Paul
Q. Aurelius Symmachus
Santo Mazzarino
Raymond Starr United States
Lewis A. Sussman United States
John P. Cavarnos United States
Andreas Alföldi
Elizabeth Keitel United States
Matthias Gelzer
Cornelius Tacitus
William C. McDermott relative to G. M. Paul G. M. Paul's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×1.5×
G. M. Paul · 1×
Citations per year

Countries citing papers authored by William C. McDermott

Since Specialization
Citations

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

Fields of papers citing papers by William C. McDermott

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers produced by William C. McDermott. 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 William C. McDermott. The network helps show where William C. McDermott may publish in the future.

Co-authors

The 7 scholars most cited alongside William C. McDermott, 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 William C. McDermott Line = papers co-authored together William C. McDermott links everyone, so they are left out of the graph.

All Works

20 of 20 papers shown

Showing the 20 most-cited of 25 papers — load more, or switch the sort, to bring in the rest.

#Work
1 196915
2 197210
3 197510
4 19755
5 19775
6 19804
7 19603
8 19733
9
Caesar's Projected Dacian-Parthian Expedition.
19822
10 19712
11 19722
12 19772
13
Stemmata quid faciunt? The Descendants of Frontinus.
19761
14 19701
15
Cicero and Catullus
19801
16 19691
17 19611
18 19821
19 19701
20 19711

About William C. McDermott

William C. McDermott is a scholar working on Anthropology, Archeology, Organic Chemistry, History and Classics, having authored 25 papers that have together received 72 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Classical Antiquity Studies (13 papers), Organic Chemistry Synthesis Methods (4 papers), Historical, Religious, and Philosophical Studies (3 papers), Classical Studies and Legal History (3 papers), Byzantine Studies and History (2 papers), Biblical Studies and Interpretation (2 papers), Medieval Literature and History (1 paper) and Ancient and Medieval Archaeology Studies (1 paper). The work is most often cited by research in Anthropology (55 citations), Classics (10 citations), Archeology (24 citations), History (16 citations) and Life-span and Life-course Studies (1 citation). William C. McDermott has collaborated with scholars based in United States. Frequent co-authors include A. N. Sherwin-White, Werner Eck, R. G. M. Nisbet, M. Gwyn Morgan, Moses Hadas, W. K. Lacey and John V. A. Fine. Their work appears in journals such as The Classical World, The American Journal of Philology, Vigiliae Christianae, Ancient Society and Phoenix.

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