Countries where authors publish in Critical Survey
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Critical Survey. 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 Survey with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Critical Survey more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers published in Critical Survey. 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 Survey.
About Critical Survey
The 420 papers published in Critical Survey in the last decades have received a total of 910 indexed citations . Papers published in Critical Survey usually cover Literature and Literary Theory (192 papers), History (73 papers), Museology (22 papers), Visual Arts and Performing Arts (22 papers) and Anthropology (37 papers) specifically the topics of Shakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary Criticism (63 papers), Irish and British Studies (37 papers), Literature: history, themes, analysis (32 papers), Contemporary Literature and Criticism (29 papers), Philippine History and Culture (25 papers), Gothic Literature and Media Analysis (23 papers), Historical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal Changes (18 papers) and Travel Writing and Literature (15 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Critical Survey are Josie Billington, Graham Holderness, Ágnes Gulyás, Thomas F. Tracy, R. I. G. Hughes, Simon Dentith, Sasha Roberts, Gill Plain, Michael Wilding and Faye Hammill.
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.