The English Common Reader: A Social History of the Mass Reading Public, 1800-1900

315 indexed citations

Abstract

loading...

About

This paper, published in 1958, received 315 indexed citations. Written by Louis B. Wright and Richard D. Altick covering the research area of . It is primarily cited by scholars working on Literature and Literary Theory (136 citations), Sociology and Political Science (88 citations) and History (73 citations). Published in The American Historical Review.

In The Last Decade

doi.org/10.2307/1849578 →

Countries where authors are citing The English Common Reader: A Social History of the Mass Reading Public, 1800-1900

Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of The English Common Reader: A Social History of the Mass Reading Public, 1800-1900. 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 The English Common Reader: A Social History of the Mass Reading Public, 1800-1900 with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites The English Common Reader: A Social History of the Mass Reading Public, 1800-1900 more than expected).

Fields of papers citing The English Common Reader: A Social History of the Mass Reading Public, 1800-1900

Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of The English Common Reader: A Social History of the Mass Reading Public, 1800-1900. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the The English Common Reader: A Social History of the Mass Reading Public, 1800-1900.

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.

This paper is also available at doi.org/10.2307/1849578.

Explore hit-papers with similar magnitude of impact

Rankless by CCL
2026