Countries where authors publish in The Yale Review
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in The Yale 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 Yale 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 Yale Review more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers published in The Yale 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 Yale Review.
About The Yale Review
The 420 papers published in The Yale Review in the last decades have received a total of 447 indexed citations . Papers published in The Yale Review usually cover Literature and Literary Theory (32 papers), Music (9 papers), History (12 papers), Visual Arts and Performing Arts (4 papers) and Anthropology (7 papers) specifically the topics of Poetry Analysis and Criticism (16 papers), Musicology and Musical Analysis (5 papers), Music History and Culture (4 papers), Themes in Literature Analysis (4 papers), Cinema and Media Studies (3 papers), Law in Society and Culture (3 papers), Contemporary Literature and Criticism (3 papers) and Shakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary Criticism (2 papers). The most active scholars publishing in The Yale Review are Paul Bloom, Eva Hoffman, Renée DiResta, Virginia Woolf, Laura Wexler, Geoffrey H. Hartman, Glenn W. Most, George Wilson Pierson, William Logan and Richard C. Levin.
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.