Countries where authors publish in Practical Theology
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Practical Theology. 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 Practical Theology with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Practical Theology more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers published in Practical Theology. 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 Practical Theology.
About Practical Theology
The 544 papers published in Practical Theology in the last decades have received a total of 1.6k indexed citations . Papers published in Practical Theology usually cover Religious studies (169 papers), Health (148 papers), Sociology and Political Science (333 papers), Geography, Planning and Development (29 papers) and Philosophy (53 papers) specifically the topics of Religion, Society, and Development (181 papers), Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology (144 papers), Theological Perspectives and Practices (136 papers), Christian Theology and Mission (111 papers), Biblical Studies and Interpretation (54 papers), Religious Education and Schools (53 papers), Religion and Society Interactions (48 papers) and Grief, Bereavement, and Mental Health (47 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Practical Theology are Steve Nolan, Susannah Cornwall, Robert E. Beamish, Leslie J. Francis, R.R. Ganzevoort, Mandy Robbins, Graeme Smith, Stephen Pattison, Elaine Graham and Andrew Parker.
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.