Countries where authors publish in Maryland law review
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Maryland law review. 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 Maryland law review with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Maryland law review more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers published in Maryland law review. 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 Maryland law review.
About Maryland law review
The 953 papers published in Maryland law review in the last decades have received a total of 3.4k indexed citations . Papers published in Maryland law review usually cover Law (297 papers), Political Science and International Relations (378 papers), Pharmacy (35 papers), Accounting (78 papers) and Economics and Econometrics (146 papers) specifically the topics of Legal Systems and Judicial Processes (220 papers), American Constitutional Law and Politics (95 papers), Law, Rights, and Freedoms (86 papers), Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems (73 papers), Legal Education and Practice Innovations (72 papers), Legal and Constitutional Studies (69 papers), Judicial and Constitutional Studies (43 papers) and Criminal Law and Evidence (43 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Maryland law review are James G. Titus, Marc Galanter, Duncan Kennedy, Jeremy Waldron, Lauren E. Willis, Donald N. Bersoff, Kenneth S. Abraham, David B. Wilkins, Larry E. Ribstein and Paul C. Weiler.
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.