Tulsa Studies in Women s Literature

10.5k citations
858 papers · · active since 1950

Impact in

    • Literature: history, themes, analysis
    • Poetry Analysis and Criticism
    • American and British Literature Analysis
    • Modernist Literature and Criticism
    • Contemporary Literature and Criticism
  • History top 1%
    • Historical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal Changes

Papers in

    • Literature: history, themes, analysis 90
    • American and British Literature Analysis 61
    • Poetry Analysis and Criticism 60
    • Modernist Literature and Criticism 30
    • American Literature and Culture 33
    • Historical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal Changes 31

Tulsa Studies in Women s Literature

415 papers receiving 3.6k citations

Peers

Tulsa Studies in Women s Literature
Comparison fields: 5 of 126
  • Literature and Literary Theory 4.8k
  • History 2.7k
  • Cultural Studies 1.1k
  • Classics 511
  • Visual Arts and Performing Arts 599
Replace South Central Review with:
South Central Review United States
diacritics United States
Representations United States
New German Critique United Kingdom
History Workshop Journal United Kingdom
Yale French Studies United States
Feminist Studies United States
Journal of Religion in Africa United States
boundary 2 South Korea
GLQ A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies United States
Tulsa Studies in Women s Literature relative to South Central Review United States South Central Review's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×1.5×2.0×
South Central Review · 1×
Citations per year

Countries where authors publish in Tulsa Studies in Women s Literature

Since Specialization
Citations

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

Fields of papers published in Tulsa Studies in Women s Literature

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers published in Tulsa Studies in Women s Literature. 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 Tulsa Studies in Women s Literature.

About Tulsa Studies in Women s Literature

The 858 papers published in Tulsa Studies in Women s Literature in the last decades have received a total of 10.5k indexed citations . Papers published in Tulsa Studies in Women s Literature usually cover Literature and Literary Theory (339 papers), History (178 papers), Cultural Studies (67 papers), Visual Arts and Performing Arts (37 papers) and Music (19 papers) specifically the topics of Literature: history, themes, analysis (90 papers), American and British Literature Analysis (61 papers), Poetry Analysis and Criticism (60 papers), Irish and British Studies (36 papers), American Literature and Culture (33 papers), Historical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal Changes (31 papers), Modernist Literature and Criticism (30 papers) and Race, History, and American Society (29 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Tulsa Studies in Women s Literature are Jane Tompkins, Elisabeth Bronfen, Ann Ardis, Jennifer L. Fleissner, Judith Halberstam, Joseph A. Kestner, Felicity Nussbaum, Lillian S. Robinson, Roberta Davidson and Rita Felski.

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