Countries where authors publish in Law library journal
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Law library journal. 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 library journal with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Law library journal more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers published in Law library journal. 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 library journal.
About Law library journal
The 324 papers published in Law library journal in the last decades have received a total of 963 indexed citations . Papers published in Law library journal usually cover Law (238 papers), Political Science and International Relations (210 papers), Library and Information Sciences (6 papers), Accounting (43 papers) and Marketing (25 papers) specifically the topics of Legal Education and Practice Innovations (210 papers), Artificial Intelligence in Law (175 papers), Comparative and International Law Studies (50 papers), Legal Systems and Judicial Processes (45 papers), Business Law and Ethics (40 papers), Artificial Intelligence Applications (35 papers), Copyright and Intellectual Property (25 papers) and Law in Society and Culture (14 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Law library journal are Richard A. Danner, David Bollier, F. Allan Hanson, Sarah Rhodes, Chunyu Kit, Paul Hellyer, James M. Donovan, Peter Höök, Paul Callister and Saul Brenner.
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.