Countries where authors publish in New Literary History
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in New Literary History. 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 Literary History with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites New Literary History more than expected).
Fields of papers published in New Literary History
This network shows the impact of papers published in New Literary History. 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 Literary History.
About New Literary History
The 1.9k papers published in New Literary History in the last decades have received a total of 21.3k indexed citations . Papers published in New Literary History usually cover Literature and Literary Theory (593 papers), Philosophy (373 papers), Visual Arts and Performing Arts (146 papers), Classics (59 papers) and History and Philosophy of Science (63 papers) specifically the topics of Philosophy, Ethics, and Existentialism (82 papers), Language, Metaphor, and Cognition (75 papers), Narrative Theory and Analysis (69 papers), Digital Humanities and Scholarship (68 papers), Poetry Analysis and Criticism (66 papers), Contemporary Literature and Criticism (58 papers), Visual Culture and Art Theory (56 papers) and Shakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary Criticism (52 papers). The most active scholars publishing in New Literary History are Bruno Latour, Wolfgang Iser, Roland Barthes, John R. Searle, Dipesh Chakrabarty, Toril Moi, Heather Love, Fredric Jameson, Stanley Fish and Rita Felski.
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.