Countries where authors publish in Fashion Practice
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Fashion Practice. 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 Fashion Practice with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Fashion Practice more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers published in Fashion Practice. 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 Fashion Practice.
About Fashion Practice
The 274 papers published in Fashion Practice in the last decades have received a total of 2.4k indexed citations . Papers published in Fashion Practice usually cover Museology (174 papers), Urban Studies (70 papers), Marketing (78 papers), Visual Arts and Performing Arts (20 papers) and Human-Computer Interaction (21 papers) specifically the topics of Fashion and Cultural Textiles (161 papers), Crafts, Textile, and Design (100 papers), Cultural Industries and Urban Development (64 papers), Environmental Sustainability in Business (36 papers), Consumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and Identification (33 papers), Consumer Retail Behavior Studies (20 papers), Sustainable Supply Chain Management (19 papers) and Innovative Human-Technology Interaction (18 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Fashion Practice are Kate Fletcher, Tracy Diane Cassidy, Marilyn DeLong, Lucy E. Dunne, Juanjuan Wu, Bethan Alexander, Anneke Smelik, Cosette M. Armstrong, Melody LeHew and Susan P. Ashdown.
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.