Countries where authors publish in Indiana Law Review
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Indiana Law Review. 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 Indiana Law Review with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Indiana Law Review more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers published in Indiana Law Review. 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 Indiana Law Review.
About Indiana Law Review
The 501 papers published in Indiana Law Review in the last decades have received a total of 1.1k indexed citations . Papers published in Indiana Law Review usually cover Law (149 papers), Political Science and International Relations (176 papers), Accounting (48 papers), Pharmacy (19 papers) and Economics and Econometrics (85 papers) specifically the topics of Legal Systems and Judicial Processes (112 papers), Legal Education and Practice Innovations (36 papers), Law, Rights, and Freedoms (35 papers), Legal and Constitutional Studies (33 papers), Criminal Law and Evidence (29 papers), American Constitutional Law and Politics (28 papers), Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems (27 papers) and Judicial and Constitutional Studies (21 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Indiana Law Review are Tanya Hayes, Elinor Ostrom, Robert K. Vischer, Shanto Iyengar, Frank Sullivan, David Millon, Michael S. Kang, Stefanie DeLuca, Nancy A. Denton and Richard W. Perry.
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.