John E. McNulty

730 total citations
9 papers, 471 citations indexed

About

John E. McNulty is a scholar working on Political Science and International Relations, Economics and Econometrics and Communication. According to data from OpenAlex, John E. McNulty has authored 9 papers receiving a total of 471 indexed citations (citations by other indexed papers that have themselves been cited), including 8 papers in Political Science and International Relations, 5 papers in Economics and Econometrics and 2 papers in Communication. Recurrent topics in John E. McNulty's work include Electoral Systems and Political Participation (8 papers), Fiscal Policy and Economic Growth (3 papers) and Social Media and Politics (2 papers). John E. McNulty is often cited by papers focused on Electoral Systems and Political Participation (8 papers), Fiscal Policy and Economic Growth (3 papers) and Social Media and Politics (2 papers). John E. McNulty collaborates with scholars based in United States. John E. McNulty's co-authors include Henry E. Brady, Jack H. Nagel, Conor M. Dowling, Jonathan S. Krasno and Gregory Robinson and has published in prestigious journals such as American Political Science Review, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science and Perspectives on Politics.

In The Last Decade

John E. McNulty

9 papers receiving 414 citations

Peers — A (Enhanced Table)

Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late) cites · hero ref

Name	h						Papers	Cites
John E. McNulty United States	8	362	193	141	81	62	9	471
Martha Kropf United States	15	436 1.2×	263 1.4×	174 1.2×	116 1.4×	64 1.0×	43	635
David Brockington United States	7	428 1.2×	235 1.2×	90 0.6×	102 1.3×	107 1.7×	14	553
Priscilla L. Southwell United States	14	518 1.4×	230 1.2×	142 1.0×	170 2.1×	96 1.5×	42	608
Mitchell S. Sanders United States	12	449 1.2×	229 1.2×	139 1.0×	90 1.1×	84 1.4×	23	578
Bernard L. Fraga United States	11	362 1.0×	191 1.0×	59 0.4×	82 1.0×	185 3.0×	21	439
Kelly D. Patterson United States	12	471 1.3×	232 1.2×	86 0.6×	165 2.0×	55 0.9×	37	585
Gabriel Katz United Kingdom	11	222 0.6×	145 0.8×	154 1.1×	48 0.6×	30 0.5×	32	421
Nick Vivyan United Kingdom	15	453 1.3×	211 1.1×	91 0.6×	111 1.4×	196 3.2×	26	594
Carlos Meléndez Chile	10	425 1.2×	358 1.9×	77 0.5×	83 1.0×	28 0.5×	27	627
D. Stephen Voss United States	11	345 1.0×	256 1.3×	104 0.7×	32 0.4×	127 2.0×	26	530

Countries citing papers authored by John E. McNulty

Since Specialization

Citations

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

Fields of papers citing papers by John E. McNulty

Since Specialization

Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers produced by John E. McNulty. 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 John E. McNulty. The network helps show where John E. McNulty may publish in the future.

Co-authorship network of co-authors of John E. McNulty

This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of John E. McNulty. A scholar is included among the top collaborators of John E. McNulty 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 John E. McNulty. John E. McNulty is excluded from the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.

All Works

Sort: Min cites: Since: Top N: Style:

9 of 9 papers shown

1.

Brady, Henry E. & John E. McNulty. (2011). Turning Out to Vote: The Costs of Finding and Getting to the Polling Place. American Political Science Review. 105(1). 115–134. 177 indexed citations

2.

McNulty, John E., et al.. (2009). Driving Saints to Sin: How Increasing the Difficulty of Voting Dissuades Even the Most Motivated Voters. Political Analysis. 17(4). 435–455. 57 indexed citations

3.

Robinson, Gregory, John E. McNulty, & Jonathan S. Krasno. (2009). Observing the Counterfactual? The Search for Political Experiments in Nature. Political Analysis. 17(4). 341–357. 55 indexed citations

4.

Brady, Henry E. & John E. McNulty. (2007). The Costs of Voting: Disruption and Transportation Effects. 1–44. 1 indexed citations

5.

McNulty, John E.. (2005). Phone-Based GOTV—What’s on the Line? Field Experiments with Varied Partisan Components, 2002-2003. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 601(1). 41–65. 35 indexed citations

6.

Brady, Henry E. & John E. McNulty. (2004). THE COSTS OF VOTING: EVIDENCE FROM A NATURAL EXPERIMENT. 26 indexed citations

7.

McNulty, John E., et al.. (2004). Punch Card Technology and the Racial Gap in Residual Votes. Perspectives on Politics. 2(3). 19 indexed citations

8.

Nagel, Jack H. & John E. McNulty. (2000). Partisan Effects of Voter Turnout in Presidential Elections. American Politics Quarterly. 28(3). 408–429. 19 indexed citations

9.

Nagel, Jack H. & John E. McNulty. (1996). Partisan Effects of Voter Turnout in Senatorial and Gubernatorial Elections. American Political Science Review. 90(4). 780–793. 82 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.

Explore authors with similar magnitude of impact