New Mexico historical review

356 papers and 455 indexed citations i.

About

The 356 papers published in New Mexico historical review in the last decades have received a total of 455 indexed citations. Papers published in New Mexico historical review usually cover Anthropology (129 papers), Cultural Studies (72 papers) and Sociology and Political Science (48 papers) specifically the topics of Archaeology and Natural History (113 papers), Latin American and Latino Studies (65 papers) and Latin American history and culture (45 papers). The most active scholars publishing in New Mexico historical review are Albert H. Schroeder, Richard E. Greenleaf, Jennifer Nez Denetdale, Thomas E. Sheridan, Jack D. Forbes, Cynthia Radding, Joan M. Jensen, Mario T. García, Ralph A. Smith and Carroll L. Riley.

In The Last Decade

Fields of papers published in New Mexico historical review

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers published in New Mexico historical 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 New Mexico historical review.

Countries where authors publish in New Mexico historical review

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of research published in New Mexico historical 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 New Mexico historical review with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites New Mexico historical review more than expected).

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

Rankless by CCL
2025