Contemporary Music Review

894 papers and 3.2k indexed citations i.

About

The 894 papers published in Contemporary Music Review in the last decades have received a total of 3.2k indexed citations. Papers published in Contemporary Music Review usually cover Music (447 papers), Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (410 papers) and Cognitive Neuroscience (157 papers) specifically the topics of Music Technology and Sound Studies (409 papers), Musicology and Musical Analysis (302 papers) and Music History and Culture (159 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Contemporary Music Review are Fred Lerdahl, Stephen McAdams, Eric Clarke, Denis Smalley, Barry Truax, Iréne Deliège, Sylvain Moreno, Neil P. McAngus Todd, Henkjan Honing and Nick Collins.

In The Last Decade

Fields of papers published in Contemporary Music Review

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers published in Contemporary Music 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 Contemporary Music Review.

Countries where authors publish in Contemporary Music Review

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Contemporary Music 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 Contemporary Music Review with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Contemporary Music Review more than expected).

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.

Explore journals with similar magnitude of impact

Rankless by CCL
2025