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 Chrysanthemum and the Sword: Patterns of Japanese Culture
1978714 citationsRuth Benedict, Arnold van GennepRAINprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
This map shows the geographic impact of Ruth Benedict'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 Ruth Benedict with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Ruth Benedict more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Ruth Benedict. 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 Ruth Benedict. The network helps show where Ruth Benedict may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Ruth Benedict
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Ruth Benedict.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Ruth Benedict 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 Ruth Benedict. Ruth Benedict is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Huntington, Samuel P., Franz Boas, Margaret Mead, Ruth Benedict, & Ashley Montagu. (2011). Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress (2000).4 indexed citations
4.
Benedict, Ruth, et al.. (2004). Хризантема и меч : модели японской культуры. Наука eBooks.1 indexed citations
5.
Benedict, Ruth, et al.. (2003). El crisantemo y la espada : patrones de la cultura japonesa. Alianza Editorial eBooks.9 indexed citations
6.
Benedict, Ruth, et al.. (2001). O'odham creation and related events. University of Arizona Press eBooks.1 indexed citations
7.
Bahr, Donald, Ruth Benedict, & Barbara A. Babcock. (2001). O'odham Creation and Related Events: As Told to Ruth Benedict in 1927.2 indexed citations
8.
Benedict, Ruth, et al.. (2000). Raza: Ciencia y Politica. Medical Entomology and Zoology.2 indexed citations
9.
Benedict, Ruth, Sandra Lee Bartky, & Jeremy Bentham. (1999). Classic Philosophical Questions.3 indexed citations
10.
Benedict, Ruth. (1997). O crisântemo e a espada : padrões da cultura japonesa.3 indexed citations
11.
Benedict, Ruth, et al.. (1993). Il crisantemo e la spada : modelli di cultura giapponese.1 indexed citations
12.
Benedict, Ruth, et al.. (1991). Le chrysantheme et le sabre. Medical Entomology and Zoology.1 indexed citations
13.
Benedict, Ruth. (1989). El hombre y la cultura. Dialnet (Universidad de la Rioja). 10. 100343–100343.19 indexed citations
Benedict, Ruth, et al.. (1982). Pedang samurai dan bunga seruni : pola-pola kebudayaan Jepang. Andalas University Repository (Andalas University).9 indexed citations
16.
Benedict, Ruth. (1981). Tales of the Cochiti Indians. DSpace Repository (Smithsonian).9 indexed citations
17.
Benedict, Ruth & Arnold van Gennep. (1978). The Chrysanthemum and the Sword: Patterns of Japanese Culture. RAIN. 14–14.714 indexed citations breakdown →
18.
Benedict, Ruth. (1959). The Family: Genus Americanum.
19.
Benedict, Ruth. (1955). Urformen der Kultur. Rowohlt eBooks.4 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.