Robert Eno
Impact in
- Religious studies top 5%
- Biblical Studies and Interpretation
- Indian and Buddhist Studies
- Cultural Studies top 10%
- Japanese History and Culture
Papers in
-
- Chinese history and philosophy 9
- Historical and Linguistic Studies 3
- Classics 7
- Medieval Literature and History 4
- Byzantine Studies and History 4
- Co-authors
- Karen Turner (1 shared paper)Mark Csikszentmihàlyi (1 shared paper)Kwong‐loi Shun (1 shared paper)Brian Farrell (1 shared paper)
- Journals
- Revue d Etudes Augustiniennes et Patristiques (2 papers)Early China (2 papers)Vigiliae Christianae (2 papers)Philosophy East and West (2 papers)The Thomist: A Speculative Quarterly Review (2 papers)
- Partner nations
- United States
In The Last Decade
Robert Eno
16 papers receiving 64 citations
Peers
Comparison fields: 5 of 30
- Religious studies 20
- Cultural Studies 24
- Classics 10
- History 17
- Philosophy 15
Countries citing papers authored by Robert Eno
This map shows the geographic impact of Robert Eno'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 Robert Eno with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Robert Eno more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by Robert Eno
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Robert Eno. 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 Robert Eno. The network helps show where Robert Eno may publish in the future.
Co-authors
The 4 scholars most cited alongside Robert Eno, linked wherever they have co-authored with each other. Click a name or a connecting line to browse the papers they share.
All Works
Showing the 20 most-cited of 28 papers — load more, or switch the sort, to bring in the rest.
| # | Work | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1990 | 16 | |
| 2 | 1992 | 16 | |
| 3 | 1986 | 11 | |
| 4 | 1992 | 9 | |
| 5 | 1984 | 7 | |
| 6 | Fulgentius : selected works | 1997 | 5 |
| 7 | 2003 | 4 | |
| 8 | The Analects of Confucius: A Teaching Translation | 2015 | 4 |
| 9 | 1981 | 3 | |
| 10 | 1987 | 3 | |
| 11 | 1999 | 3 | |
| 12 | The analecTs of confucius | 2016 | 3 |
| 13 | 1972 | 3 | |
| 14 | Reading the Apostolic Fathers. an Introduction | 1997 | 2 |
| 15 | Teaching authority in the early church | 1984 | 2 |
| 16 | 1987 | 1 | |
| 17 | 1992 | 1 | |
| 18 | Zhuangzi: The Inner Chapters | 2019 | 1 |
| 19 | 1983 | 0 | |
| 20 | 1977 | 0 |
About Robert Eno
Robert Eno is a scholar working on Sociology and Political Science, Classics, Religious studies, History and Political Science and International Relations, having authored 28 papers that have together received 94 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Chinese history and philosophy (9 papers), Theology and Canon Law Studies (5 papers), Medieval Literature and History (4 papers), Byzantine Studies and History (4 papers), Historical and Religious Studies of Rome (4 papers), Biblical Studies and Interpretation (3 papers), Historical and Linguistic Studies (3 papers) and Augustinian Studies and Theology (2 papers). The work is most often cited by research in Religious studies (20 citations), Cultural Studies (24 citations), Classics (10 citations), History (17 citations) and Philosophy (15 citations). Robert Eno has collaborated with scholars based in United States. Frequent co-authors include Karen Turner, Mark Csikszentmihàlyi, Kwong‐loi Shun and Brian Farrell. Their work appears in journals such as Revue d Etudes Augustiniennes et Patristiques, Early China, Vigiliae Christianae, Philosophy East and West and The Thomist: A Speculative Quarterly Review.
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.