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.
The Modernity of Witchcraft: Politics and the Occult in Postcolonial Africa
Countries citing papers authored by Peter Geschiere
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Peter Geschiere'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 Peter Geschiere with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Peter Geschiere more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Peter Geschiere. 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 Peter Geschiere. The network helps show where Peter Geschiere may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Peter Geschiere
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Peter Geschiere.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Peter Geschiere 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 Peter Geschiere. Peter Geschiere is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Comaroff, Jean, Peter Geschiere, Kamari Maxine Clarke, & Adeline Masquelier. (2012). Portrait: Jean Comaroff. Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University). 3(1). 5–34.2 indexed citations
7.
Geschiere, Peter. (2010). The self-reflective turn in ethnography: from dialogue to narcissism?. UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam). 22(1). 137–146.6 indexed citations
8.
Geschiere, Peter. (2009). Autochtonie, cultuur en geschiedenis: het glibberige pad van de identiteit. UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam). 2009. 901–911.1 indexed citations
Geschiere, Peter. (2004). Autochthony and citizenship: new modes in the struggle over belonging and exclusion in Africa. 18. 9–23.2 indexed citations
11.
Pandey, Gyanendra & Peter Geschiere. (2003). The forging of nationhood.1 indexed citations
12.
Geschiere, Peter. (2003). 'Witchcraft as the Dark Side of Kinship - Dilemmas of Social Security in New Contexts'. UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam). 43–62.21 indexed citations
13.
Bayart, Jean-François, Peter Geschiere, & Francis B. Nyamnjoh. (2001). Autochthony, Democracy, and Citizenship in Africa. Critique internationale. 177–194.
14.
Geschiere, Peter. (1997). The modernity of witchcraft : politics and the occult in postcolonial Africa = Sorcellerie et politique en Afrique : la viande des autres.4 indexed citations
15.
Geschiere, Peter & Cyprian F. Fisiy. (1995). Sorcellerie et politique en Afrique : la viande des autres.64 indexed citations
16.
Geschiere, Peter. (1995). Slavery and Kinship in the Old Political Economy of the Maka (Cameroon, Eastern Province). Paideuma. 41. 207–225.1 indexed citations
17.
Fisiy, Cyprian F. & Peter Geschiere. (1993). Sorcellerie et accumulation, variations régionales.. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 174(11). 99–130.4 indexed citations
18.
Geschiere, Peter. (1989). Heksen voor de rechter: de overheid op heksenjacht in Oost-Kameroen. Sociologische Gids. 36. 187–206.1 indexed citations
Geschiere, Peter. (1984). Hegemonische regimes en volksverzet in postkoloniaal Afrika: Bayart, Gramsci en de staat in Kameroen. Sociologische Gids. 31(4). 344–368.
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.