Webster's third new international dictionary of the English language, unabridged
- Authors
- Philip B. Gove
- Journal
- Virtual Defense Library (Ministerio de Defensa)
In The Last Decade
doi.org/w55319364 →Countries where authors are citing Webster's third new international dictionary of the English language, unabridged
This map shows the geographic impact of Webster's third new international dictionary of the English language, unabridged. 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 Webster's third new international dictionary of the English language, unabridged with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Webster's third new international dictionary of the English language, unabridged more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Webster's third new international dictionary of the English language, unabridged
This network shows the impact of Webster's third new international dictionary of the English language, unabridged. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Webster's third new international dictionary of the English language, unabridged.
About Webster's third new international dictionary of the English language, unabridged
This paper, published in 1971, received 505 indexed citations . Written by Philip B. Gove covering the research area of Language and Linguistics. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Sociology and Political Science (75 citations), Language and Linguistics (52 citations) and Social Psychology (44 citations). Published in Virtual Defense Library (Ministerio de Defensa).
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/w55319364.