Countries where authors publish in Common Knowledge
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Common Knowledge. 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 Common Knowledge with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Common Knowledge more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers published in Common Knowledge. 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 Common Knowledge.
About Common Knowledge
The 904 papers published in Common Knowledge in the last decades have received a total of 9.2k indexed citations . Papers published in Common Knowledge usually cover Philosophy (120 papers), Classics (37 papers), History and Philosophy of Science (38 papers), Anthropology (77 papers) and History (80 papers) specifically the topics of Religion and Society Interactions (29 papers), Anthropological Studies and Insights (27 papers), American Constitutional Law and Politics (25 papers), Reformation and Early Modern Christianity (24 papers), Medieval Literature and History (23 papers), Pragmatism in Philosophy and Education (23 papers), Classical Antiquity Studies (19 papers) and Philosophy, Ethics, and Existentialism (18 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Common Knowledge are Barry W. Allen, Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, Bruno Latour, Bruce Krajewski, Anna Tsing, Michael P. Kramer, Richard Rorty, William M. Chace, J. G. A. Pocock and Kwame Anthony Appiah.
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.