This map shows the geographic impact of research published in American imago. 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 American imago with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites American imago more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers published in American imago. 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 American imago.
About American imago
The 553 papers published in American imago in the last decades have received a total of 2.2k indexed citations . Papers published in American imago usually cover General Psychology (40 papers), Literature and Literary Theory (137 papers), Clinical Psychology (219 papers), Philosophy (93 papers) and Cultural Studies (62 papers) specifically the topics of Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications (144 papers), Psychoanalysis, Philosophy, and Politics (63 papers), Themes in Literature Analysis (42 papers), Psychoanalysis and Social Critique (41 papers), Academic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology (40 papers), Philosophy, Ethics, and Existentialism (27 papers), Memory, Trauma, and Commemoration (26 papers) and Contemporary Literature and Criticism (22 papers). The most active scholars publishing in American imago are Bessel A. van der Kolk, Onno van der Hart, Susan Rubín Suleiman, Glenn Albrecht, Stephen Frosh, Brandon Hamber, Edward Kaplan, Joe Cambray, Warren S. Poland and Timothy Clark.
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.