Countries where authors publish in North Carolina law review
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in North Carolina 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 North Carolina 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 North Carolina law review more than expected).
Fields of papers published in North Carolina law review
This network shows the impact of papers published in North Carolina 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 North Carolina law review.
About North Carolina law review
The 1.6k papers published in North Carolina law review in the last decades have received a total of 8.1k indexed citations . Papers published in North Carolina law review usually cover Law (477 papers), Political Science and International Relations (601 papers), Accounting (182 papers), Economics and Econometrics (301 papers) and Sociology and Political Science (371 papers) specifically the topics of Legal Systems and Judicial Processes (363 papers), Law, Rights, and Freedoms (194 papers), Legal and Constitutional Studies (143 papers), American Constitutional Law and Politics (134 papers), Criminal Law and Evidence (93 papers), Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems (82 papers), Judicial and Constitutional Studies (81 papers) and Legal Education and Practice Innovations (67 papers). The most active scholars publishing in North Carolina law review are John Powell, Richard A. Leo, Steven A. Drizin, J. B. Ruhl, Frank Dobbin, Jiwook Jung, Thomas Lee Hazen, Janet Ainsworth, Colleen V. Chien and Kenneth L. Karst.
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.