Countries where authors publish in Virginia Law Review
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Virginia Law 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 Virginia Law Review with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Virginia Law Review more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers published in Virginia Law 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 Virginia Law Review.
About Virginia Law Review
The 1.4k papers published in Virginia Law Review in the last decades have received a total of 13.7k indexed citations . Papers published in Virginia Law Review usually cover Law (421 papers), Political Science and International Relations (468 papers), Economics and Econometrics (317 papers), Accounting (127 papers) and Pharmacy (29 papers) specifically the topics of Legal Systems and Judicial Processes (207 papers), Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems (140 papers), American Constitutional Law and Politics (137 papers), Legal and Constitutional Studies (135 papers), Judicial and Constitutional Studies (90 papers), Law, Rights, and Freedoms (88 papers), Criminal Law and Evidence (86 papers) and Legal principles and applications (79 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Virginia Law Review are Lynn A. Stout, Barry R. Weingast, Margaret M. Blair, Henry G. Manne, John C. Coffee, Richard L. Revesz, Norman S. Poser, Rebecca S. Eisenberg, Dan M. Kahan and Robert E. Scott.
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.