This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Modern China. 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 Modern China with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Modern China more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers published in Modern China. 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 Modern China.
About Modern China
The 876 papers published in Modern China in the last decades have received a total of 12.4k indexed citations . Papers published in Modern China usually cover Cultural Studies (115 papers), Political Science and International Relations (333 papers), Sociology and Political Science (564 papers), Gender Studies (56 papers) and Anthropology (56 papers) specifically the topics of Chinese history and philosophy (410 papers), China's Socioeconomic Reforms and Governance (265 papers), Vietnamese History and Culture Studies (154 papers), Japanese History and Culture (103 papers), China's Ethnic Minorities and Relations (80 papers), Hong Kong and Taiwan Politics (78 papers), Demographic Trends and Gender Preferences (40 papers) and Southeast Asian Sociopolitical Studies (23 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Modern China are Philip C. C. Huang, Lianjiang Li, Xue-Guang Zhou, Shaoguang Wang, Louisa Schein, Stevan Harrell, Ngai Pun, Feng Chen, Joseph W. Esherick and Hongyi Harry Lai.
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.