LIT Literature Interpretation Theory

777 citations
395 papers · · active since 1989

Impact in

    • Postcolonial and Cultural Literary Studies
    • Contemporary Literature and Criticism
    • American and British Literature Analysis
    • Modernist Literature and Criticism
    • Ecocriticism and Environmental Literature
    • Poetry Analysis and Criticism
    • Narrative Theory and Analysis

Papers in

    • Literary Theory and Cultural Hermeneutics 89
    • Contemporary Literature and Criticism 85
    • American and British Literature Analysis 71
    • Modernist Literature and Criticism 40
    • Postcolonial and Cultural Literary Studies 36
    • Poetry Analysis and Criticism 34
    • Literature: history, themes, analysis 32
    • Gothic Literature and Media Analysis 31

LIT Literature Interpretation Theory

210 papers receiving 446 citations

Peers

LIT Literature Interpretation Theory
Comparison fields: 5 of 56
  • Literature and Literary Theory 498
  • Cultural Studies 108
  • Philosophy 103
  • History 85
  • Visual Arts and Performing Arts 42
Replace Journal of Narrative Theory with:
Journal of Narrative Theory United States
Genre United States
Critical Survey United Kingdom
Contemporary Women s Writing United Kingdom
Arizona quarterly/˜The œArizona quarterly United States
Nineteenth-Century Literature United States
Nineteenth Century Contexts United States
Law & Literature United States
English Literature in Transition 1880-1920 United Kingdom
a/b Auto/Biography Studies United States
LIT Literature Interpretation Theory relative to Journal of Narrative Theory United States Journal of Narrative Theory's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×1.5×2.0×
Journal of Narrative Theory · 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 395 papers published in LIT Literature Interpretation Theory in the last decades have received a total of 777 indexed citations . Papers published in LIT Literature Interpretation Theory usually cover Literature and Literary Theory (321 papers), Cultural Studies (52 papers), Philosophy (48 papers), History (45 papers) and Visual Arts and Performing Arts (24 papers) specifically the topics of Literary Theory and Cultural Hermeneutics (89 papers), Contemporary Literature and Criticism (85 papers), American and British Literature Analysis (71 papers), Modernist Literature and Criticism (40 papers), Postcolonial and Cultural Literary Studies (36 papers), Poetry Analysis and Criticism (34 papers), Literature: history, themes, analysis (32 papers) and Gothic Literature and Media Analysis (31 papers). The most active scholars publishing in LIT Literature Interpretation Theory are Gerry Canavan, SUSAN COTTS WATKINS, Mark Llewellyn, Nathan Snaza, Roberta Rubenstein, Min Hyoung Song, Liam Harte, 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