Electoral Studies

2.7k papers and 53.2k indexed citations i.

About

The 2.7k papers published in Electoral Studies in the last decades have received a total of 53.2k indexed citations. Papers published in Electoral Studies usually cover Political Science and International Relations (2.2k papers), Sociology and Political Science (978 papers) and Economics and Econometrics (496 papers) specifically the topics of Electoral Systems and Political Participation (1.9k papers), Social Media and Politics (420 papers) and Populism, Right-Wing Movements (371 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Electoral Studies are Matthew Søberg Shugart, John M. Carey, Benny Geys, Michael S. Lewis‐Beck, Michael Gallagher, Christopher J. Anderson, Matt Golder, Christopher Wlezien, Gary C. Jacobson and William G. Jacoby.

In The Last Decade

Fields of papers published in Electoral Studies

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers published in Electoral 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 Electoral Studies.

Countries where authors publish in Electoral Studies

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Electoral 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 Electoral Studies with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Electoral Studies 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