Buddhist Studies Review

263 papers and 405 indexed citations i.

About

The 263 papers published in Buddhist Studies Review in the last decades have received a total of 405 indexed citations. Papers published in Buddhist Studies Review usually cover Religious studies (164 papers), Sociology and Political Science (98 papers) and Political Science and International Relations (84 papers) specifically the topics of Indian and Buddhist Studies (163 papers), Chinese history and philosophy (73 papers) and Asian Geopolitics and Ethnography (73 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Buddhist Studies Review are R. Will Burnett, Charles S. Prebish, Peter Harvey, Ann Heirman, Various Various, Bhikkhu Anālayo, Ian A. Harris, Richard Gombrich, Nathan Katz and Kyung-Rae Kim.

In The Last Decade

Fields of papers published in Buddhist Studies Review

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers published in Buddhist Studies 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 Buddhist Studies Review.

Countries where authors publish in Buddhist Studies Review

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Buddhist Studies 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 Buddhist Studies Review with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Buddhist Studies 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