Countries where authors publish in Classical Philology
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Classical Philology. 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 Classical Philology with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Classical Philology more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers published in Classical Philology. 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 Classical Philology.
About Classical Philology
The 1.8k papers published in Classical Philology in the last decades have received a total of 5.4k indexed citations . Papers published in Classical Philology usually cover Anthropology (1.3k papers), Classics (272 papers), Philosophy (512 papers), Archeology (394 papers) and Language and Linguistics (235 papers) specifically the topics of Classical Antiquity Studies (1.2k papers), Classical Philosophy and Thought (418 papers), Organic Chemistry Synthesis Methods (383 papers), Historical, Religious, and Philosophical Studies (279 papers), Byzantine Studies and History (201 papers), Historical and Linguistic Studies (193 papers), Linguistics and language evolution (193 papers) and Historical and Literary Studies (162 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Classical Philology are Richard Saller, Michael Gagarin, Stewart Irvin Oost, Anne Pippin Burnett, Matthew B. Roller, Helene P. Foley, Elaine Fantham, Gerald F. Else, Jaś Elsner and Arnaldo Momigliano.
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.