Countries where authors publish in Asia Pacific Law Review
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Asia Pacific Law Review. 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 papers published in Asia Pacific Law Review with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Asia Pacific Law Review more than expected).
Fields of papers published in Asia Pacific Law Review
This network shows the impact of papers published in Asia Pacific Law Review. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers published in Asia Pacific Law Review.
About Asia Pacific Law Review
The 309 papers published in Asia Pacific Law Review in the last decades have received a total of 869 indexed citations . Papers published in Asia Pacific Law Review usually cover Law (135 papers), Strategy and Management (95 papers), Accounting (29 papers), Political Science and International Relations (77 papers) and Finance (12 papers) specifically the topics of International Arbitration and Investment Law (57 papers), Judicial and Constitutional Studies (26 papers), Comparative and International Law Studies (24 papers), Dispute Resolution and Class Actions (18 papers), International Law and Human Rights (17 papers), Intellectual Property Law (17 papers), World Trade Organization Law (16 papers) and Legal principles and applications (14 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Asia Pacific Law Review are Haitian Lu, Fa Chen, Julien Chaisse, James Allan, Philip Norton, Jianfu Chen, Stephan Ortmann, Siegfried Wiessner, Lei Chen and Wei Cui.
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.