English Literary Renaissance

787 papers and 1.8k indexed citations i.

About

The 787 papers published in English Literary Renaissance in the last decades have received a total of 1.8k indexed citations. Papers published in English Literary Renaissance usually cover History (385 papers), Classics (358 papers) and Literature and Literary Theory (211 papers) specifically the topics of Medieval Literature and History (273 papers), Reformation and Early Modern Christianity (181 papers) and Renaissance Literature and Culture (130 papers). The most active scholars publishing in English Literary Renaissance are Jean E. Howard, Louis Montrose, Carol Thomas Neely, Lynda E. Boose, Mary Ellen Lamb, David Norbrook, Adam Smyth, Mary Beth Rose, Joseph Loewenstein and Karen Raber.

In The Last Decade

Fields of papers published in English Literary Renaissance

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers published in English Literary Renaissance. 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 English Literary Renaissance.

Countries where authors publish in English Literary Renaissance

Since Specialization
Citations

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