This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Folklore. 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 Folklore with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Folklore more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers published in Folklore. 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 Folklore.
About Folklore
The 1.3k papers published in Folklore in the last decades have received a total of 4.8k indexed citations . Papers published in Folklore usually cover Literature and Literary Theory (550 papers), Classics (118 papers), History (206 papers), Anthropology (155 papers) and Archeology (14 papers) specifically the topics of Folklore, Mythology, and Literature Studies (508 papers), Religious Studies and Spiritual Practices (118 papers), Medieval Literature and History (102 papers), Themes in Literature Analysis (73 papers), Historical Studies of British Isles (68 papers), Historical and Archaeological Studies (55 papers), Culinary Culture and Tourism (54 papers) and Philippine History and Culture (52 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Folklore are Jacqueline Simpson, Juliette Wood, Penelope M. Gouk, Gillian Bennett, Timothy R. Tangherlini, Venetia J. Newall, Owen Davies, John M. Newton, Aref Abu-Rabia and Hilda R. Ellis Davidson.
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.