Emma Chanlett-Avery
About
In The Last Decade
Emma Chanlett-Avery
38 papers receiving 137 citations
Peers
Comparison fields: 5 of 44
- Sociology and Political Science 129
- Political Science and International Relations 97
- Cultural Studies 19
- Economics and Econometrics 17
- Development 14
Countries citing papers authored by Emma Chanlett-Avery
This map shows the geographic impact of Emma Chanlett-Avery'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 Emma Chanlett-Avery with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Emma Chanlett-Avery more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by Emma Chanlett-Avery
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Emma Chanlett-Avery. 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 Emma Chanlett-Avery. The network helps show where Emma Chanlett-Avery may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Emma Chanlett-Avery
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Emma Chanlett-Avery. A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Emma Chanlett-Avery 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 Emma Chanlett-Avery. Emma Chanlett-Avery is excluded from the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
All Works
| # | Work | Indexed citations |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | U.S.-Japan Alliance Updated [June 13, 2019] | 1 |
| 2 | Japan-U.S. Relations: Issues for Congress [January 13, 2015] | 0 |
| 3 | Japan-U.S. Relations: Issues for Congress [April 23, 2015] | 0 |
| 4 | Japan-U.S. Relations: Issues for Congress [May 1, 2013] | 1 |
| 5 | U.S.-South Korea Relations [July 8, 2011] | 1 |
| 6 | Japan 2011 Earthquake: U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) Response [June 2, 2011] | 1 |
| 7 | Japan-U.S. Relations: Issues for Congress | 2 |
| 8 | Japan 2011 Earthquake: U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) Response | 3 |
| 9 | Implementation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1874 [October 8, 2010] | 1 |
| 10 | U.S.-South Korea Relations [November 3, 2010] | 1 |
| 11 | North Korea: U.S. Relations, Nuclear Diplomacy, and Internal Situation [January 15, 2016] | 0 |
| 12 | North Korea's Second Nuclear Test: Implications of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1874 [July 1, 2009] | 1 |
| 13 | Japan's Nuclear Future: Policy Debate, Prospects and U.S. Interests [February 19, 2009] | 7 |
| 14 | North Korean Economy: Leverage and Policy Analysis [Updated August 26, 2008] | 1 |
| 15 | Japan's Nuclear Future: Policy Debate, Prospects, and U.S. Interests | 5 |
| 16 | Rising Energy Competition and Energy Security in Northeast Asia: Issues for U.S. Policy | 2 |
| 17 | North Korean Refugees in China and Human Rights Issues: International Response and U.S. Policy Options [September 26, 2007] | 2 |
| 18 | International Efforts to Control the Spread of the Avian Influenza (H5N1) Virus: Affected Countries' Responses [April 5, 2006] | 1 |
| 19 | North Korean Economy: Background and Policy Analysis [Updated January 24, 2006] | 2 |
| 20 | Rise of China and Its Effect on Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea: U.S. Policy Choices [April 12, 2005] | 1 |
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.