The Political Economy of Slavery: Studies in the Economy and Society of the Slave South
- Authors
- Eugene D. Genovese
- Journal
- The William and Mary Quarterly
In The Last Decade
doi.org/10.2307/1920583 →Countries where authors are citing The Political Economy of Slavery: Studies in the Economy and Society of the Slave South
This map shows the geographic impact of The Political Economy of Slavery: Studies in the Economy and Society of the Slave South. 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 Political Economy of Slavery: Studies in the Economy and Society of the Slave South with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites The Political Economy of Slavery: Studies in the Economy and Society of the Slave South more than expected).
Fields of papers citing The Political Economy of Slavery: Studies in the Economy and Society of the Slave South
This network shows the impact of The Political Economy of Slavery: Studies in the Economy and Society of the Slave South. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the The Political Economy of Slavery: Studies in the Economy and Society of the Slave South.
About The Political Economy of Slavery: Studies in the Economy and Society of the Slave South
This paper, published in 1967, received 150 indexed citations . Written by Eugene D. Genovese covering the research area of Anthropology. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Sociology and Political Science (91 citations), Political Science and International Relations (36 citations) and Economics and Econometrics (32 citations). Published in The William and Mary Quarterly.
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/10.2307/1920583.