History of the Human Sciences

1.1k papers and 8.0k indexed citations i.

About

The 1.1k papers published in History of the Human Sciences in the last decades have received a total of 8.0k indexed citations. Papers published in History of the Human Sciences usually cover Sociology and Political Science (393 papers), Philosophy (192 papers) and Clinical Psychology (184 papers) specifically the topics of Academic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology (146 papers), Historical Psychiatry and Medical Practices (107 papers) and Historical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal Changes (92 papers). The most active scholars publishing in History of the Human Sciences are Nikolas Rose, Fernando Vidal, Thomas Osborne, Arnold I. Davidson, John Forrester, Peter Johnson, Bonnie Evans, Scott Vrecko, Roger Smith and Darren Webb.

In The Last Decade

Fields of papers published in History of the Human Sciences

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers published in History of the Human Sciences. 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 History of the Human Sciences.

Countries where authors publish in History of the Human Sciences

Since Specialization
Citations

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