William M. Chace
Impact in
- Literature and Literary Theory top 10%
- Poetry Analysis and Criticism
- Modernist Literature and Criticism
Papers in
-
- Modernist Literature and Criticism 4
- Poetry Analysis and Criticism 3
- Samuel Beckett and Modernism 3
- Shakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary Criticism 1
-
- Nuclear Issues and Defense 1
- Co-authors
- Walter Sutton (2 shared papers)Peter Collier (2 shared papers)J. Paul Hunter (1 shared paper)John Donaldson (1 shared paper)
- Journals
- Common Knowledge (16 papers)American Literature (2 papers)Operations Research (1 paper)American Quarterly (1 paper)NOVEL A Forum on Fiction (1 paper)
- Partner nations
- United States
In The Last Decade
William M. Chace
18 papers receiving 155 citations
Peers
Comparison fields: 5 of 64
- Literature and Literary Theory 32
- General Psychology 3
- Education 65
- Visual Arts and Performing Arts 9
- Philosophy 19
Countries citing papers authored by William M. Chace
This map shows the geographic impact of William M. Chace'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 M. Chace with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites William M. Chace more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by William M. Chace
This network shows the impact of papers produced by William M. Chace. 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 M. Chace. The network helps show where William M. Chace may publish in the future.
Co-authors
The 4 scholars most cited alongside William M. Chace, linked wherever they have co-authored with each other. Click a name or a connecting line to browse the papers they share.
All Works
Showing the 20 most-cited of 28 papers — load more, or switch the sort, to bring in the rest.
| # | Work | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2011 | 100 | |
| 2 | 2010 | 28 | |
| 3 | 1974 | 10 | |
| 4 | 2022 | 8 | |
| 5 | 1975 | 7 | |
| 6 | 2008 | 7 | |
| 7 | 1990 | 6 | |
| 8 | The political identities of Ezra Pound & T. S. Eliot | 1973 | 6 |
| 9 | 2024 | 4 | |
| 10 | 1981 | 4 | |
| 11 | 1957 | 3 | |
| 12 | 2015 | 3 | |
| 13 | 2006 | 2 | |
| 14 | Joyce : a collection of critical essays | 1974 | 1 |
| 15 | 2013 | 1 | |
| 16 | An introduction to literature | 1985 | 1 |
| 17 | 2006 | 1 | |
| 18 | 1970 | 1 | |
| 19 | 1977 | 1 | |
| 20 | 2018 | 1 |
About William M. Chace
William M. Chace is a scholar working on Literature and Literary Theory, Political Science and International Relations, Sociology and Political Science, Speech and Hearing and Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality, having authored 28 papers that have together received 195 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Modernist Literature and Criticism (4 papers), Poetry Analysis and Criticism (3 papers), Samuel Beckett and Modernism (3 papers), Italian Fascism and Post-war Society (1 paper), Shakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary Criticism (1 paper), Nuclear and radioactivity studies (1 paper), Nuclear Issues and Defense (1 paper) and Radioactive contamination and transfer (1 paper). The work is most often cited by research in Literature and Literary Theory (32 citations), General Psychology (3 citations), Education (65 citations), Visual Arts and Performing Arts (9 citations) and Philosophy (19 citations). William M. Chace has collaborated with scholars based in United States. Frequent co-authors include Walter Sutton, Peter Collier, J. Paul Hunter and John Donaldson. Their work appears in journals such as Common Knowledge, American Literature, Operations Research, American Quarterly and NOVEL A Forum on Fiction.
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.