Law and Financial Markets Review

1.2k citations
299 papers · · active since 2016

Impact in

    • Banking stability, regulation, efficiency
    • Global Financial Regulation and Crises
    • Corporate Finance and Governance
    • Islamic Finance and Banking Studies

Papers in

    • Global Financial Regulation and Crises 64
    • Banking stability, regulation, efficiency 49
    • Housing, Finance, and Neoliberalism 17
    • Corporate Insolvency and Governance 26

Law and Financial Markets Review

210 papers receiving 937 citations

Peers

Law and Financial Markets Review
Comparison fields: 5 of 76
  • Finance 325
  • Accounting 296
  • Management Information Systems 210
  • Strategy and Management 291
  • Economics and Econometrics 272
Replace Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration with:
Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration United States
European Company and Financial Law Review Germany
Capital Markets Law Journal United States
˜The œGeorgetown law journal United States
Journal of Developing Societies United States
Accounting Economics and Law - A Convivium United States
Policy Design and Practice Australia
Research in Globalization Ghana
Theoretical Inquiries in Law United States
Economic and Political Studies China
Law and Financial Markets Review relative to Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration United States Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×2×3.3×
Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration · 1×
Citations per year

Countries where authors publish in Law and Financial Markets Review

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Law and Financial Markets 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 Law and Financial Markets Review with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Law and Financial Markets Review more than expected).

Fields of papers published in Law and Financial Markets Review

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers published in Law and Financial Markets 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 Law and Financial Markets Review.

About Law and Financial Markets Review

The 299 papers published in Law and Financial Markets Review in the last decades have received a total of 1.2k indexed citations . Papers published in Law and Financial Markets Review usually cover Finance (114 papers), Accounting (63 papers), Strategy and Management (84 papers), Law (44 papers) and Economics and Econometrics (48 papers) specifically the topics of Global Financial Regulation and Crises (64 papers), Banking stability, regulation, efficiency (49 papers), State Capitalism and Financial Governance (29 papers), Corporate Insolvency and Governance (26 papers), Corporate Governance and Law (24 papers), Insurance and Financial Risk Management (22 papers), Legal principles and applications (19 papers) and Housing, Finance, and Neoliberalism (17 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Law and Financial Markets Review are Andrew Mazen Dahdal, Thomas Clarke, Jon Truby, Julia Black, Rafael Dean Brown, Richard Baldwin, Rodney Maddock, Kevin Davis, Danny Busch and Iris H‐Y Chiu.

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