The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans
- Authors
- Matthew Levendusky
- Journal
- Medical Entomology and Zoology
In The Last Decade
doi.org/w50371207 →Countries where authors are citing The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans
This map shows the geographic impact of The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans. 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 Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans more than expected).
Fields of papers citing The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans
This network shows the impact of The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans.
About The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans
This paper, published in 2009, received 457 indexed citations . Written by Matthew Levendusky. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Political Science and International Relations (352 citations), Sociology and Political Science (266 citations), Communication (158 citations), Strategy and Management (69 citations) and Gender Studies (65 citations). Published in Medical Entomology and Zoology.
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/w50371207.