A Testament of Hope : The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr.
- Journal
- Medical Entomology and Zoology
In The Last Decade
doi.org/w76792815 →Countries where authors are citing A Testament of Hope : The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr.
This map shows the geographic impact of A Testament of Hope : The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr.. 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 A Testament of Hope : The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr. with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites A Testament of Hope : The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr. more than expected).
Fields of papers citing A Testament of Hope : The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr.
This network shows the impact of A Testament of Hope : The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr.. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the A Testament of Hope : The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr..
About A Testament of Hope : The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr.
This paper, published in 1986, received 236 indexed citations . Written by Martín Luther King and James Melvin Washington covering the research area of History. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Sociology and Political Science (123 citations), Political Science and International Relations (56 citations) and Philosophy (54 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/w76792815.