Countries where authors publish in The Missouri review
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in The Missouri review. 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 Missouri review with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites The Missouri review more than expected).
Fields of papers published in The Missouri review
This network shows the impact of papers published in The Missouri review. 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 Missouri review.
About The Missouri review
The 415 papers published in The Missouri review in the last decades have received a total of 629 indexed citations . Papers published in The Missouri review usually cover Literature and Literary Theory (354 papers), Visual Arts and Performing Arts (85 papers), History (85 papers), Music (13 papers) and Museology (10 papers) specifically the topics of Poetry Analysis and Criticism (213 papers), Contemporary Literature and Criticism (163 papers), Short Stories in Global Literature (87 papers), Artistic and Creative Research (64 papers), American Literature and Culture (60 papers), Autobiographical and Biographical Writing (38 papers), American and British Literature Analysis (20 papers) and Modern American Literature Studies (20 papers). The most active scholars publishing in The Missouri review are Suzanne Juhasz, James C. VanderKam, Leonard Barolli, Admir Barolli, Fatos Xhafa, Junzi Sun, Jamaica Kincaid, Linda Hogan, Kangbin Yim and Fang−Yie Leu.
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.