Boston University law review

338 papers and 1.3k indexed citations i.

About

The 338 papers published in Boston University law review in the last decades have received a total of 1.3k indexed citations. Papers published in Boston University law review usually cover Political Science and International Relations (164 papers), Law (109 papers) and Sociology and Political Science (89 papers) specifically the topics of Legal Systems and Judicial Processes (93 papers), Legal and Constitutional Studies (54 papers) and Law, Rights, and Freedoms (53 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Boston University law review are Helen Nissenbaum, Frederick Schauer, Danielle Keats Citron, Barry C. Feld, Avner Ben‐Ner, Louis Putterman, David I. Walker, Frederick Tung, Tamar Frankel and Robert D. Cooter.

In The Last Decade

Fields of papers published in Boston University law review

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers published in Boston University 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 Boston University law review.

Countries where authors publish in Boston University law review

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Boston University 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 Boston University 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 Boston University law review more than expected).

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 journals with similar magnitude of impact

Rankless by CCL
2025