Countries where authors publish in Religious Studies
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Religious 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 Religious Studies with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Religious Studies more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers published in Religious 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 Religious Studies.
About Religious Studies
The 1.9k papers published in Religious Studies in the last decades have received a total of 8.9k indexed citations . Papers published in Religious Studies usually cover Philosophy (1.4k papers), Religious studies (354 papers), History and Philosophy of Science (106 papers), Experimental and Cognitive Psychology (212 papers) and Health (75 papers) specifically the topics of Theology and Philosophy of Evil (1.0k papers), Karl Barth and Christian Theology (289 papers), Religion and Society Interactions (222 papers), Medieval Philosophy and Theology (208 papers), War, Ethics, and Justification (199 papers), Philosophy and Theoretical Science (197 papers), Biblical Studies and Interpretation (188 papers) and Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics (146 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Religious Studies are Gershom Scholem, Louis P. Pojman, J. L. Schellenberg, John Hick, Katherin A. Rogers, Jan Pinborg, Anthony Kenny, Norman Kretzmann, Mikael Stenmark and Wes Morriston.
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.