Countries where authors publish in Critical Asian Studies
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Critical Asian Studies. 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 Critical Asian Studies with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Critical Asian Studies more than expected).
Fields of papers published in Critical Asian Studies
This network shows the impact of papers published in Critical Asian Studies. 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 Critical Asian Studies.
About Critical Asian Studies
The 708 papers published in Critical Asian Studies in the last decades have received a total of 8.4k indexed citations . Papers published in Critical Asian Studies usually cover Political Science and International Relations (316 papers), Sociology and Political Science (525 papers) and Cultural Studies (77 papers) specifically the topics of Southeast Asian Sociopolitical Studies (138 papers), Asian Studies and History (112 papers), Vietnamese History and Culture Studies (91 papers), Asian Geopolitics and Ethnography (69 papers), Cambodian History and Society (67 papers), Japanese History and Culture (64 papers), China's Socioeconomic Reforms and Governance (59 papers) and Chinese history and philosophy (58 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Critical Asian Studies are Merlyna Lim, Edward Aspinall, Francis Lee, Ben Kiernan, Jennifer Robertson, Sarah Milne, Philip F. Kelly, Duncan McCargo, Ian G. Baird and Nicole Constable.
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.