Philip Tew

807 citations
26 papers · 272 · h-index 8

Impact in

Papers in

Philip Tew

20 papers receiving 231 citations

Peers

Philip Tew
Comparison fields: 5 of 82
  • Human-Computer Interaction 39
  • Literature and Literary Theory 76
  • Biophysics 18
  • Computer Graphics and Computer-Aided Design 10
  • Structural Biology 3
Replace John Hampton with:
John Hampton United States
Hanna Risku Austria
Asaf Nissenbaum Israel
John Hollander United States
Graeme Kennedy New Zealand
John Corbett China
Barbara Lewandowska‐Tomaszczyk Poland
Elizabeth Rowley‐Jolivet France
Alejandra Meneses Chile
Ferenc Kiefer Hungary
Philip Tew relative to John Hampton United States John Hampton's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×10×20×27×
John Hampton · 1×
Citations per year

Countries citing papers authored by Philip Tew

Since Specialization
Citations

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

Fields of papers citing papers by Philip Tew

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers produced by Philip Tew. 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 Philip Tew. The network helps show where Philip Tew may publish in the future.

Co-authors

The 25 scholars most cited alongside Philip Tew, linked wherever they have co-authored with each other. Click a name or a connecting line to browse the papers they share.

Border = papers with Philip Tew Line = papers co-authored together Philip Tew links everyone, so they are left out of the graph.

All Works

20 of 20 papers shown

Showing the 20 most-cited of 26 papers — load more, or switch the sort, to bring in the rest.

#Work
1 201896
2 200736
3
Contemporary British fiction
200324
4
The Contemporary British Novel
200423
5 201416
6 201412
7 201312
8 202011
9 20137
10 20106
11 20115
12
B.S. Johnson: A Critical Reading
20015
13 20155
14
Coming of age
20113
15 20063
16 20082
17 20142
18 20071
19 20161
20 20071

About Philip Tew

Philip Tew is a scholar working on Literature and Literary Theory, Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Clinical Psychology, Sociology and Political Science and Philosophy, having authored 26 papers that have together received 272 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Contemporary Literature and Criticism (11 papers), Music Technology and Sound Studies (3 papers), Postcolonial and Cultural Literary Studies (3 papers), Modernist Literature and Criticism (2 papers), Irish and British Studies (2 papers), Themes in Literature Analysis (2 papers), Data Visualization and Analytics (2 papers) and Signaling Pathways in Disease (1 paper). The work is most often cited by research in Human-Computer Interaction (39 citations), Literature and Literary Theory (76 citations), Biophysics (18 citations), Computer Graphics and Computer-Aided Design (10 citations) and Structural Biology (3 citations). Philip Tew has collaborated with scholars based in United Kingdom and United States. Frequent co-authors include Elaine Showalter, David R. Glowacki, Rod Mengham, Richard Lane, Michael B. O’Connor, Anne Roudaut, Oussama Metatla, P. J. Bates, Adrian J. Mulholland and Helen M. Deeks. Their work appears in journals such as Changing English, The Modern Language Review, Critical Survey, Leonardo and The Review of English Studies.

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