Countries where authors publish in Russian History
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Russian History. 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 Russian History with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Russian History more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers published in Russian History. 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 Russian History.
About Russian History
The 544 papers published in Russian History in the last decades have received a total of 986 indexed citations . Papers published in Russian History usually cover Classics (57 papers), History (90 papers) and Political Science and International Relations (192 papers) specifically the topics of Soviet and Russian History (93 papers), Byzantine Studies and History (52 papers), Historical and Archaeological Studies (40 papers), Eastern European Communism and Reforms (36 papers), Historical Geopolitical and Social Dynamics (33 papers), Eurasian Exchange Networks (30 papers), Linguistics and language evolution (29 papers) and Russia and Soviet political economy (22 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Russian History are Richard Hellie, Charles J. Halperin, Sheila Fitzpatrick, Peter B. Brown, Martin K. Dimitrov, Simon Franklin, Golfo Alexopoulos, David B. Miller, Theodore R. Weeks and John P. LeDonne.
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.