Countries where authors publish in Critical Quarterly
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Critical Quarterly. 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 Critical Quarterly with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Critical Quarterly more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers published in Critical Quarterly. 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 Critical Quarterly.
About Critical Quarterly
The 1.3k papers published in Critical Quarterly in the last decades have received a total of 6.9k indexed citations . Papers published in Critical Quarterly usually cover Literature and Literary Theory (262 papers), Visual Arts and Performing Arts (43 papers), Music (19 papers), Philosophy (58 papers) and History (44 papers) specifically the topics of Poetry Analysis and Criticism (67 papers), Irish and British Studies (66 papers), Contemporary Literature and Criticism (49 papers), Shakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary Criticism (42 papers), Cinema and Media Studies (29 papers), Modernist Literature and Criticism (28 papers), Themes in Literature Analysis (21 papers) and Joseph Conrad and Literature (18 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Critical Quarterly are Dick Hebdige, Michael W. Apple, Jonas A. Barish, Paul Gilroy, Simon Frith, Tom Shippey, Stephen Heath, Terry Eagleton, Andrew Goodwin and Colin MacCabe.
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.