LIT Literature Interpretation Theory

726 citations
405 papers · · active since 1950

Impact in

    • Contemporary Literature and Criticism
    • Postcolonial and Cultural Literary Studies
    • Literature: history, themes, analysis
    • Ecocriticism and Environmental Literature
    • Themes in Literature Analysis
    • Crime and Detective Fiction Studies
    • Gothic Literature and Media Analysis

Papers in

    • Contemporary Literature and Criticism 53
    • American and British Literature Analysis 28
    • Postcolonial and Cultural Literary Studies 24
    • Themes in Literature Analysis 24
    • Shakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary Criticism 21
    • Gothic Literature and Media Analysis 40

LIT Literature Interpretation Theory

183 papers receiving 380 citations

Peers

LIT Literature Interpretation Theory
Comparison fields: 5 of 73
  • Literature and Literary Theory 403
  • Cultural Studies 158
  • Philosophy 115
  • Visual Arts and Performing Arts 46
  • History 92
Replace Genre with:
Genre United States
Critical Survey United Kingdom
Contemporary Women s Writing United Kingdom
Minnesota Review United States
Arizona quarterly/˜The œArizona quarterly United States
English Literature in Transition 1880-1920 United States
Studies in American Indian Literatures United States
Studies in American fiction United States
Partial Answers Journal of Literature and the History of Ideas Belgium
Journal of Narrative Theory United States
LIT Literature Interpretation Theory relative to Genre United States Genre's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×1.5×
Genre · 1×
Citations per year

Countries where authors publish in LIT Literature Interpretation Theory

Since Specialization
Citations

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

Fields of papers published in LIT Literature Interpretation Theory

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers published in LIT Literature Interpretation Theory. 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 LIT Literature Interpretation Theory.

About LIT Literature Interpretation Theory

The 405 papers published in LIT Literature Interpretation Theory in the last decades have received a total of 726 indexed citations . Papers published in LIT Literature Interpretation Theory usually cover Literature and Literary Theory (220 papers), Cultural Studies (74 papers), Philosophy (53 papers), Visual Arts and Performing Arts (22 papers) and History (42 papers) specifically the topics of Contemporary Literature and Criticism (53 papers), Gothic Literature and Media Analysis (40 papers), American and British Literature Analysis (28 papers), Postcolonial and Cultural Literary Studies (24 papers), Themes in Literature Analysis (24 papers), Shakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary Criticism (21 papers), Utopian, Dystopian, and Speculative Fiction (20 papers) and Irish and British Studies (20 papers). The most active scholars publishing in LIT Literature Interpretation Theory are Gerry Canavan, Susan Watkins, Christine Ferguson, Rebecca Pope, Mark Llewellyn, Roberta Rubenstein, Terry Brown, Pamela K. Gilbert, Donald B. Gibson and M. Keith Booker.

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