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 867 papers published in Common Knowledge in the last decades have received a total of 7.5k indexed citations . Papers published in Common Knowledge usually cover Philosophy (226 papers), Classics (67 papers), Literature and Literary Theory (175 papers), History (158 papers) and Anthropology (105 papers) specifically the topics of Anthropological Studies and Insights (49 papers), Medieval Literature and History (43 papers), Philosophy, History, and Historiography (35 papers), Modernist Literature and Criticism (34 papers), Libraries, Manuscripts, and Books (33 papers), Literary Theory and Cultural Hermeneutics (32 papers), Posthumanist Ethics and Activism (31 papers) and Study and Philosophy of Religion (31 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Common Knowledge are Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, Bruno Latour, Anna Tsing, Bruce Krajewski, Michael P. Kramer, Richard M. Rorty, William M. Chace, John G. A. Pocock, Kwame Anthony Appiah and Linda Hutcheon.
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.