Review of General Psychology

845 papers and 72.8k indexed citations i.

About

The 845 papers published in Review of General Psychology in the last decades have received a total of 72.8k indexed citations. Papers published in Review of General Psychology usually cover Social Psychology (389 papers), Experimental and Cognitive Psychology (245 papers) and Sociology and Political Science (215 papers) specifically the topics of Cultural Differences and Values (112 papers), Social and Intergroup Psychology (94 papers) and Academic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology (87 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Review of General Psychology are James J. Gross, Barbara L. Fredrickson, Raymond S. Nickerson, Stevan E. Hobfoll, Roy F. Baumeister, Kathleen D. Vohs, Dan P. McAdams, Ellen Bratslavsky, Catrin Finkenauer and John Archer.

In The Last Decade

Fields of papers published in Review of General Psychology

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers published in Review of General Psychology. 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 Review of General Psychology.

Countries where authors publish in Review of General Psychology

Since Specialization
Citations

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