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.
Toward a General Theory of Action
19511.3k citationsTalcott Parsons, Edward Shils et al.Harvard University Press eBooksprofile →
Toward a General Theory of Action.
19521.1k citationsTalcott Parsons, Edward Shils et al.profile →
Working Papers in the Theory of Action.
1954604 citationsTalcott Parsons, Edward Shils et al.profile →
This map shows the geographic impact of Edward Shils'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 Edward Shils with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Edward Shils more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Edward Shils. 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 Edward Shils. The network helps show where Edward Shils may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Edward Shils
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Edward Shils.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Edward Shils 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 Edward Shils. Edward Shils 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.
Shils, Edward, Chester I. Barnard, Jacob Viner, et al.. (2016). Science and Scientists in the Public Arena. DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library). 91(10). 485–6.1 indexed citations
2.
Shils, Edward & Steven Grosby. (1997). The virtue of civility : selected essays on liberalism, tradition, and civil society.68 indexed citations
3.
Shils, Edward & Carmen Blacker. (1996). Cambridge women : twelve portraits. Cambridge University Press eBooks.11 indexed citations
4.
Shils, Edward, et al.. (1991). Universities in the service of truth and utility. P. Lang eBooks.4 indexed citations
5.
Shils, Edward. (1991). Remembering the University of Chicago : teachers, scientists, and scholars. University of Chicago Press eBooks.25 indexed citations
6.
Shils, Edward. (1991). The Virtue of Civil Society. Government and Opposition. 26(1). 3–20.151 indexed citations
Davison, Peter, Rolf Meyersohn, & Edward Shils. (1978). Literature and society.1 indexed citations
11.
Shils, Edward. (1978). The Academic Ethos..7 indexed citations
12.
Davison, Peter, Rolf Meyersohn, & Edward Shils. (1978). The Sociology of literature.1 indexed citations
13.
Shils, Edward. (1976). Intellectuals and Their Discontents..2 indexed citations
14.
Shils, Edward. (1970). Tradition, Ecology, and Institution in the History of Sociology.. Daedalus.63 indexed citations
15.
Shils, Edward. (1970). Selected papers of Edward Shils. University of Chicago Press eBooks.3 indexed citations
16.
Shils, Edward. (1968). Criteria for scientific development : public policy and national goals : a selection of articles from Minerva. DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library).7 indexed citations
Shils, Edward. (1966). Ritual and crisis. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences. 251(772). 447–450.11 indexed citations
Parsons, Talcott, et al.. (1951). Toward a General Theory of Action. Harvard University Press eBooks.1314 indexed citations breakdown →
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.