This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Prose Studies. 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 Prose Studies with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Prose Studies more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers published in Prose Studies. 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 Prose Studies.
About Prose Studies
The 547 papers published in Prose Studies in the last decades have received a total of 1.9k indexed citations . Papers published in Prose Studies usually cover History (146 papers), Literature and Literary Theory (146 papers), Religious studies (33 papers), Museology (20 papers) and Anthropology (51 papers) specifically the topics of Reformation and Early Modern Christianity (36 papers), Autobiographical and Biographical Writing (33 papers), Travel Writing and Literature (31 papers), Literature: history, themes, analysis (30 papers), American Constitutional Law and Politics (25 papers), Historical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal Changes (24 papers), Historical Economic and Social Studies (22 papers) and Philippine History and Culture (20 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Prose Studies are Sharmila Banerjee Mukherjee, Joad Raymond, Nigel Smith, Michael S. Harris, Rocío G. Davis, Keith Stewart, Jean Watson, Gerald MacLean, J. A. Downie and Josephine McDonagh.
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.