Review of Keynesian Economics

333 papers and 2.5k indexed citations i.

About

The 333 papers published in Review of Keynesian Economics in the last decades have received a total of 2.5k indexed citations. Papers published in Review of Keynesian Economics usually cover General Economics, Econometrics and Finance (246 papers), Economics and Econometrics (189 papers) and Finance (96 papers) specifically the topics of Economic Theory and Policy (230 papers), Economic theories and models (91 papers) and Political Economy and Marxism (85 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Review of Keynesian Economics are Gerald Friedman, Thomas I. Palley, Robert A. Blecker, Engelbert Stockhammer, Luiz Carlos Bresser‐Pereira, Philip Arestis, A. P. Thirlwáll, Peter Skøtt, Marc Lavoie and Gennaro Zezza.

In The Last Decade

Fields of papers published in Review of Keynesian Economics

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers published in Review of Keynesian Economics. 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 Review of Keynesian Economics.

Countries where authors publish in Review of Keynesian Economics

Since Specialization
Citations

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