Daniel H. Bays

738 citations
27 papers · 312 · h-index 8

Impact in

Papers in

Daniel H. Bays

23 papers receiving 225 citations

Peers

Daniel H. Bays
Comparison fields: 5 of 45
  • Sociology and Political Science 261
  • Geography, Planning and Development 32
  • Religious studies 27
  • Cultural Studies 41
  • Anthropology 39
Replace Rebecca Nedostup with:
Rebecca Nedostup United States
André Laliberté Canada
Donald S. Sutton United States
Douglas A. Lorimer Canada
Nanlai Cao Hong Kong
Paul J. Hauben United States
Edward L. Cleary United States
Herman Ooms
Richard V. Pierard United States
Russell E. Richey United States
Daniel H. Bays relative to Rebecca Nedostup United States Rebecca Nedostup's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×4.3×
Rebecca Nedostup · 1×
Citations per year

Countries citing papers authored by Daniel H. Bays

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of Daniel H. Bays's research. 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 Daniel H. Bays with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Daniel H. Bays more than expected).

Fields of papers citing papers by Daniel H. Bays

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers produced by Daniel H. Bays. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers produced by Daniel H. Bays. The network helps show where Daniel H. Bays may publish in the future.

Co-authors

The 6 scholars most cited alongside Daniel H. Bays, linked wherever they have co-authored with each other. Click a name or a connecting line to browse the papers they share.

Border = papers with Daniel H. Bays Line = papers co-authored together Daniel H. Bays links everyone, so they are left out of the graph.

All Works

20 of 20 papers shown

Showing the 20 most-cited of 27 papers — load more, or switch the sort, to bring in the rest.

#Work
1 201168
2 200363
3 198747
4 198923
5 198816
6 198714
7 197811
8 19788
9 20116
10 19986
11
Christianity and the Chinese Sectarian Tradition
19825
12 19745
13 19765
14 19704
15
The growth of independent Christianity in China, 1900-1937
19964
16 19824
17 19694
18 20103
19 20123
20 19823

About Daniel H. Bays

Daniel H. Bays is a scholar working on Sociology and Political Science, Religious studies, Geography, Planning and Development, Political Science and International Relations and Anthropology, having authored 27 papers that have together received 312 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Chinese history and philosophy (21 papers), Vietnamese History and Culture Studies (6 papers), Christian Theology and Mission (6 papers), Religious Tourism and Spaces (3 papers), China's Socioeconomic Reforms and Governance (2 papers), Socioeconomic Development in Asia (1 paper), Philippine History and Culture (1 paper) and Hong Kong and Taiwan Politics (1 paper). The work is most often cited by research in Sociology and Political Science (261 citations), Geography, Planning and Development (32 citations), Religious studies (27 citations), Cultural Studies (41 citations) and Anthropology (39 citations). Daniel H. Bays has collaborated with scholars based in United States. Frequent co-authors include Joseph W. Esherick, Hao Chang, James E. Sheridan, Jun Xing, John Κ. Fairbank and Mark Elvin. Their work appears in journals such as The American Historical Review, Journal of Church and State, Modern Asian Studies, The Journal of Asian Studies and The China Quarterly.

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 authors with similar magnitude of impact