Emerita
- Topics
- Classical Antiquity StudiesArchaeological and Historical StudiesCultural and Mythological Studies
In The Last Decade
Emerita
195 papers receiving 278 citations
Peers
Comparison fields: 5 of 54
- Anthropology 206
- Archeology 168
- Language and Linguistics 103
- Literature and Literary Theory 85
- Philosophy 61
Countries where authors publish in Emerita
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Emerita. 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 Emerita with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Emerita more than expected).
Fields of papers published in Emerita
This network shows the impact of papers published in Emerita. 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 Emerita.
About Emerita
The 463 papers published in Emerita in the last decades have received a total of 461 indexed citations . Papers published in Emerita usually cover General Arts and Humanities (73 papers), Anthropology (196 papers) and Archeology (155 papers) specifically the topics of Classical Antiquity Studies (191 papers), Archaeological and Historical Studies (108 papers) and Cultural and Mythological Studies (73 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Emerita are Francisco Rodríguez Adrados, Francis Cairns, Arthur M. Eckstein, Barry Baldwin, Carlos García Gual, Leonard A. Curchin, Alberto Bernabé, Shirley Darcus Sullivan, Robert Maltby and Joseph F. Eska.
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.