LIT Literature Interpretation Theory

868 citations
429 papers · · active since 1950

Impact in

    • Contemporary Literature and Criticism
    • Poetry Analysis and Criticism
    • Postcolonial and Cultural Literary Studies
    • Literature: history, themes, analysis
    • Ecocriticism and Environmental Literature
    • American and British Literature Analysis
    • Gothic Literature and Media Analysis

Papers in

    • Contemporary Literature and Criticism 55
    • American and British Literature Analysis 31
    • Themes in Literature Analysis 26
    • Postcolonial and Cultural Literary Studies 25
    • Poetry Analysis and Criticism 24
    • Gothic Literature and Media Analysis 40

LIT Literature Interpretation Theory

201 papers receiving 445 citations

Peers

LIT Literature Interpretation Theory
Comparison fields: 5 of 74
  • Literature and Literary Theory 489
  • Cultural Studies 177
  • Visual Arts and Performing Arts 58
  • Philosophy 132
  • Geography, Planning and Development 55
Replace Contemporary Women s Writing with:
Contemporary Women s Writing United Kingdom
Critical Survey United Kingdom
English Literature in Transition 1880-1920 United Kingdom
Minnesota Review United States
Genre United States
Gothic Studies United Kingdom
Studies in American Indian Literatures United States
Comparative American Studies An International Journal 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 Contemporary Women s Writing United Kingdom Contemporary Women s Writing's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×1.7×
Contemporary Women s Writing · 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 429 papers published in LIT Literature Interpretation Theory in the last decades have received a total of 868 indexed citations . Papers published in LIT Literature Interpretation Theory usually cover Literature and Literary Theory (232 papers), Cultural Studies (75 papers), Visual Arts and Performing Arts (26 papers), Philosophy (55 papers) and History (46 papers) specifically the topics of Contemporary Literature and Criticism (55 papers), Gothic Literature and Media Analysis (40 papers), American and British Literature Analysis (31 papers), Themes in Literature Analysis (26 papers), Postcolonial and Cultural Literary Studies (25 papers), Poetry Analysis and Criticism (24 papers), Irish and British Studies (22 papers) and Utopian, Dystopian, and Speculative Fiction (21 papers). The most active scholars publishing in LIT Literature Interpretation Theory are Gerry Canavan, Susan Watkins, Mark Llewellyn, Christine Ferguson, Rebecca Pope, Nathan Snaza, Pamela K. Gilbert, Donald B. Gibson, Terry Brown and Roberta Rubenstein.

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