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 1.8k papers published in New Literary History in the last decades have received a total of 20.5k indexed citations . Papers published in New Literary History usually cover Literature and Literary Theory (1.3k papers), Classics (127 papers), Philosophy (329 papers), Visual Arts and Performing Arts (142 papers) and History (203 papers) specifically the topics of Literary Theory and Cultural Hermeneutics (653 papers), Poetry Analysis and Criticism (145 papers), Historical and Literary Analyses (142 papers), Narrative Theory and Analysis (119 papers), Modernist Literature and Criticism (102 papers), Philosophy, History, and Historiography (89 papers), Contemporary Literature and Criticism (74 papers) and Postcolonial and Cultural Literary Studies (69 papers). The most active scholars publishing in New Literary History are Bruno Latour, Wolfgang Iser, Roland Barthes, John Rogers Searle, Dipesh Chakrabarty, Toril Moi, Paul Ricœur, Heather K. Love, Fredric Jameson and Stanley Eugene Fish.
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.