The Review of English Studies

1.6k papers and 2.3k indexed citations i.

About

The 1.6k papers published in The Review of English Studies in the last decades have received a total of 2.3k indexed citations. Papers published in The Review of English Studies usually cover Literature and Literary Theory (296 papers), History (264 papers) and Classics (240 papers) specifically the topics of Medieval Literature and History (218 papers), Reformation and Early Modern Christianity (88 papers) and Historical Studies of British Isles (83 papers). The most active scholars publishing in The Review of English Studies are Lucy Newlyn, Katherine Duncan‐Jönes, Charlotte Brewer, Bruce Mitchell, Rosemary Woolf, Thorlac Turville‐Petre, J. C. MAXWELL, Daniel Katz, Leonard Neidorf and David Womersley.

In The Last Decade

Fields of papers published in The Review of English Studies

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers published in The Review of English 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 The Review of English Studies.

Countries where authors publish in The Review of English Studies

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of research published in The Review of English 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 The Review of English Studies with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites The Review of English Studies more than expected).

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.

Explore journals with similar magnitude of impact

Rankless by CCL
2025