Countries where authors publish in Asian Studies Review
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Asian Studies Review. 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 papers published in Asian Studies Review with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Asian Studies Review more than expected).
Fields of papers published in Asian Studies Review
This network shows the impact of papers published in Asian Studies Review. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers published in Asian Studies Review.
About Asian Studies Review
The 1.3k papers published in Asian Studies Review in the last decades have received a total of 8.7k indexed citations . Papers published in Asian Studies Review usually cover Cultural Studies (229 papers), Political Science and International Relations (466 papers), Sociology and Political Science (825 papers), Anthropology (128 papers) and Development (29 papers) specifically the topics of Asian Studies and History (245 papers), Southeast Asian Sociopolitical Studies (167 papers), Japanese History and Culture (159 papers), Socioeconomic Development in Asia (139 papers), Chinese history and philosophy (122 papers), Asian Culture and Media Studies (109 papers), Vietnamese History and Culture Studies (94 papers) and Asian Geopolitics and Ethnography (83 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Asian Studies Review are Ien Ang, Michael Barr, Ross Tapsell, Terence Lee, J. A. C. Mackie, Karl Gustafsson, Lyn Parker, Brenda S. A. Yeoh, Burhanuddin Muhtadi and Lily Kong.
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.