Countries where authors publish in Theological Studies
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Theological 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 Theological Studies with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Theological Studies more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers published in Theological 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 Theological Studies.
About Theological Studies
The 1.6k papers published in Theological Studies in the last decades have received a total of 4.3k indexed citations . Papers published in Theological Studies usually cover Religious studies (631 papers), Philosophy (388 papers), History (347 papers), Classics (76 papers) and Sociology and Political Science (488 papers) specifically the topics of Biblical Studies and Interpretation (257 papers), Christian Theology and Mission (236 papers), Catholicism and Religious Studies (199 papers), American Constitutional Law and Politics (177 papers), Theology and Canon Law Studies (169 papers), Theology and Philosophy of Evil (159 papers), Medieval Philosophy and Theology (159 papers) and Religion, Society, and Development (144 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Theological Studies are Sandra Marie Schneiders, Daniel C. Maguire, Peter C. Phan, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, James F. Keenan, John W. O’Malley, Richard A. McCormick, David Hollenbach, Lisa Sowle Cahill and John Courtney Murray.
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.