Hit papers significantly outperform the citation benchmark for their cohort. A paper qualifies
if it has ≥500 total citations, achieves ≥1.5× the top-1% citation threshold for papers in the
same subfield and year (this is the minimum needed to enter the top 1%, not the average
within it), or reaches the top citation threshold in at least one of its specific research
topics.
Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art
19811.2k citationsDavid William Foster, Julia Kristeva et al.Rocky Mountain Review of Language and Literatureprofile →
On Deconstruction. Theory and Criticism after Structuralism
1984446 citationsDavid William Foster, Jonathan CullerRocky Mountain Review of Language and Literatureprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
Countries citing papers authored by David William Foster
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of David William Foster'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 David William Foster with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites David William Foster more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by David William Foster
This network shows the impact of papers produced by David William Foster. 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 David William Foster. The network helps show where David William Foster may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of David William Foster
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of David William Foster.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of David William Foster based on the total number of
citations received by their joint publications. Widths of edges
represent the number of papers authors have co-authored together.
Node borders
signify the number of papers an author published with David William Foster. David William Foster is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
All Works
20 of 20 papers shown
1.
Foster, David William. (2005). Apuntes sobre el cine queer en América Latina. 26(1). 233–242.1 indexed citations
Foster, David William & Jonathan Culler. (1984). On Deconstruction. Theory and Criticism after Structuralism. Rocky Mountain Review of Language and Literature. 38(1/2). 90–90.446 indexed citations breakdown →
8.
Foster, David William & Robert Scholes. (1984). Semiotics and Interpretation. Rocky Mountain Review of Language and Literature. 38(1/2). 104–104.92 indexed citations
Foster, David William. (1981). The Oxford Companion to Spanish Literature ed. by Philip Ward (review). Rocky Mountain Review of Language and Literature. 35(1). 84–85.
11.
Foster, David William, et al.. (1981). Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art. Rocky Mountain Review of Language and Literature. 35(4). 314–314.1220 indexed citations breakdown →
12.
Foster, David William & Philip J. Ward. (1981). The Oxford Companion to Spanish Literature. Rocky Mountain Review of Language and Literature. 35(1). 84–84.2 indexed citations
13.
Foster, David William. (1980). Ambigüedad verbal y dramatica en El señor Galindez de Eduardo Pavlovsky. Latin American theatre review. 13(3). 103–110.
Foster, David William. (1975). Currents in the contemporary Argentine novel : Arlt, Mallea, Sabato, and Cortázar. MOspace Institutional Repository (University of Missouri).
17.
Foster, David William, et al.. (1973). Terciopelo, la cazadora negra. Books Abroad. 47(1). 114–114.1 indexed citations
18.
Foster, David William. (1971). The early Spanish ballad.1 indexed citations
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.