Peritia
Impact in
Papers in
Peritia
168 papers receiving 647 citations
Peers
Comparison fields: 5 of 66
- Classics 2.3k
- History 1.7k
- Anthropology 547
- Language and Linguistics 399
- Archeology 247
Countries where authors publish in Peritia
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Peritia. 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 Peritia with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Peritia more than expected).
Fields of papers published in Peritia
This network shows the impact of papers published in Peritia. 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 Peritia.
About Peritia
The 314 papers published in Peritia in the last decades have received a total of 2.7k indexed citations . Papers published in Peritia usually cover Classics (177 papers), History (200 papers), Language and Linguistics (60 papers), Archeology (37 papers) and Anthropology (35 papers) specifically the topics of Medieval Literature and History (157 papers), Historical Studies of British Isles (148 papers), Linguistics and language evolution (52 papers), Byzantine Studies and History (39 papers), Classical Antiquity Studies (28 papers), Historical and Religious Studies of Rome (25 papers), Irish and British Studies (24 papers) and Historical and Archaeological Studies (23 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Peritia are Richard Sharpe, Dáibhí Ó Cróinín, Liam Breatnach, Thomas M. Charles-Edwards, David N. Dumville, William J. O’Sullivan, Donnchadh Ó Corráin, Kim R. McCone, Hermann L. Moisl and Neil T. Wright.
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.