William Keach
- Language and Linguistics top 10%
- Historical Linguistics and Language Studies 4
- Literature and Literary Theory top 10%
- Literature: history, themes, analysis 2
- Shakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary Criticism 1
- Philosophy top 5%
-
- Philippine History and Culture 2
-
- Botany and Plant Ecology Studies 1
- Botanical Studies and Applications 1
-
- Archaeological Research and Protection 1
-
- Natural product bioactivities and synthesis 1
- Journals
- Studies in Romanticism (7 papers)European Romantic Review (2 papers)The Wordsworth Circle (1 paper)
- Partner nations
- United StatesNetherlands
In The Last Decade
William Keach
11 papers receiving 118 citations
Peers
Comparison fields: 5 of 43
- Language and Linguistics 50
- Literature and Literary Theory 52
- Philosophy 41
- Linguistics and Language 16
- History and Philosophy of Science 15
Countries citing papers authored by William Keach
This map shows the geographic impact of William Keach'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 William Keach with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites William Keach more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by William Keach
This network shows the impact of papers produced by William Keach. 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 William Keach. The network helps show where William Keach may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network
The 4 scholars most cited alongside William Keach, linked wherever they have co-authored with each other. Click a name or a connecting line to browse the papers they share.
All Works
| # | Work | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2019 | 0 | |
| 2 | 2016 | 3 | |
| 3 | 2006 | 24 | |
| 4 | 2004 | 8 | |
| 5 | 2003 | 1 | |
| 6 | 2000 | 2 | |
| 7 | 1998 | 1 | |
| 8 | 1997 | 1 | |
| 9 | 1994 | 16 | |
| 10 | 1992 | 0 | |
| 11 | 1988 | 1 | |
| 12 | 1986 | 11 | |
| 13 | 1985 | 106 | |
| 14 | 1982 | 1 | |
| 15 | 1981 | 1 | |
| 16 | 1981 | 2 | |
| 17 | 1978 | 3 | |
| 18 | 1977 | 9 |
About William Keach
William Keach is a scholar working on Space and Planetary Science, Language and Linguistics, Literature and Literary Theory, Anthropology and History, having authored 18 papers that have together received 190 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Historical Linguistics and Language Studies (4 papers), Philippine History and Culture (2 papers), Literature: history, themes, analysis (2 papers), Botany and Plant Ecology Studies (1 paper), Archaeological Research and Protection (1 paper), Botanical Studies and Applications (1 paper), Natural product bioactivities and synthesis (1 paper) and Shakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary Criticism (1 paper). The work is most often cited by research in Language and Linguistics (50 citations), Literature and Literary Theory (52 citations), Philosophy (41 citations), Linguistics and Language (16 citations) and History and Philosophy of Science (15 citations). William Keach has collaborated with scholars based in United States and Netherlands. Frequent co-authors include Hans Aarsleff, Kevin Gilmartin, David M. Simpson and John A. Hodgson. Their work appears in journals such as Studies in Romanticism, European Romantic Review, The Wordsworth Circle, Modern Philology and Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes.
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.