Countries where authors publish in Labour History Review
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Labour History 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 Labour History Review with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Labour History Review more than expected).
Fields of papers published in Labour History Review
This network shows the impact of papers published in Labour History 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 Labour History Review.
About Labour History Review
The 326 papers published in Labour History Review in the last decades have received a total of 877 indexed citations . Papers published in Labour History Review usually cover Public Administration (141 papers), History (92 papers), Political Science and International Relations (130 papers), Safety Research (22 papers) and Sociology and Political Science (77 papers) specifically the topics of Labor Movements and Unions (141 papers), Political and Economic history of UK and US (102 papers), Historical Economic and Social Studies (39 papers), Philosophy, History, and Historiography (27 papers), European Political History Analysis (27 papers), Employment, Labor, and Gender Studies (21 papers), Communism, Protests, Social Movements (18 papers) and World Wars: History, Literature, and Impact (12 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Labour History Review are Jane Humphries, Arthur J. McIvor, John K. Walton, Michael Rowlinson, John McIlroy, Jim Tomlinson, David Gilbert, Momin Rahman, Richard Toye and Alan Campbell.
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.