Music
Impact in
- Cognitive Neuroscience 262.4k
- Neuroscience and Music Perception
Also classified as
Music
9.5k papers receiving 40.5k citations
Countries where authors publish papers about Music
This map shows the geographic impact of research in Music. 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 about Music with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Music more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers about Music
This network shows the impact of papers covering Music. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers covering Music.
About Music
129.2k papers covering Music have received a total of 906.5k indexed citations since 1950 . Papers on Music are most often about the specific topic of Diverse Music Education Insights, Musicology and Musical Analysis, Music History and Culture, Diverse Musicological Studies, Theater, Performance, and Music History, Neuroscience and Music Perception, Music Technology and Sound Studies and Music Therapy and Health and also cover the fields of Visual Arts and Performing Arts, Literature and Literary Theory, Cognitive Neuroscience, Cultural Studies and Rehabilitation. Papers citing work on Music are usually about Cognitive Neuroscience, Visual Arts and Performing Arts, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Social Psychology and Urban Studies. Some of the most active scholars covering Music are Ann Swidler, Dick Hebdige, Warren H. Meck, John Sloboda, Susan Hallam, Tia DeNora, Andy Bennett, David J. Hargreaves, Patrik N. Juslin and Mike Featherstone.
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.