The Financial Market Impact of Quantitative Easing in the United Kingdom
- Journal
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics
In The Last Decade
doi.org/w60121315 →Countries where authors are citing The Financial Market Impact of Quantitative Easing in the United Kingdom
This map shows the geographic impact of The Financial Market Impact of Quantitative Easing in the United Kingdom. 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 Financial Market Impact of Quantitative Easing in the United Kingdom with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites The Financial Market Impact of Quantitative Easing in the United Kingdom more than expected).
Fields of papers citing The Financial Market Impact of Quantitative Easing in the United Kingdom
This network shows the impact of The Financial Market Impact of Quantitative Easing in the United Kingdom. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the The Financial Market Impact of Quantitative Easing in the United Kingdom.
About The Financial Market Impact of Quantitative Easing in the United Kingdom
This paper, published in 2012, received 295 indexed citations . Written by Michael Joyce, Ana Lasaosa, Ibrahim Stevens and Matthew Tong covering the research area of General Economics, Econometrics and Finance and Economics and Econometrics. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Finance (228 citations), General Economics, Econometrics and Finance (203 citations) and Economics and Econometrics (152 citations). Published in RePEc: Research Papers in Economics.
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/w60121315.