Countries where authors publish in Hispanic Review
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Hispanic Review. 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 Hispanic Review with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Hispanic Review more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers published in Hispanic Review. 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 Hispanic Review.
About Hispanic Review
The 2.6k papers published in Hispanic Review in the last decades have received a total of 6.9k indexed citations . Papers published in Hispanic Review usually cover Literature and Literary Theory (1.5k papers), Classics (322 papers), General Arts and Humanities (74 papers), Conservation (149 papers) and History (441 papers) specifically the topics of Spanish Literature and Culture Studies (772 papers), Early Modern Spanish Literature (722 papers), Comparative Literary Analysis and Criticism (470 papers), Medieval Iberian Studies (284 papers), Libraries, Manuscripts, and Books (196 papers), Spanish Linguistics and Language Studies (164 papers), Spanish Culture and Identity (149 papers) and Historical Art and Architecture Studies (148 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Hispanic Review are Steven N. Dworkin, Otis H. Green, Thomas E. Skidmore, David T. Gies, Francisco Rico, Juan Bautista Avalle-Arce, Alberto Medina, Elías L. Rivers, Yvonne Freccero and René Girard.
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.