Countries where authors publish in Medieval Archaeology
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Medieval Archaeology. 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 Medieval Archaeology with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Medieval Archaeology more than expected).
Fields of papers published in Medieval Archaeology
This network shows the impact of papers published in Medieval Archaeology. 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 Medieval Archaeology.
About Medieval Archaeology
The 598 papers published in Medieval Archaeology in the last decades have received a total of 3.7k indexed citations . Papers published in Medieval Archaeology usually cover Space and Planetary Science (31 papers), History (243 papers) and Paleontology (168 papers) specifically the topics of Archaeology and ancient environmental studies (168 papers), Historical and Archaeological Studies (160 papers), Historical Studies of British Isles (73 papers), Medieval Literature and History (66 papers), Historical and Cultural Archaeology Studies (59 papers), Maritime and Coastal Archaeology (48 papers), Ancient and Medieval Archaeology Studies (41 papers) and Medieval Architecture and Archaeology (37 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Medieval Archaeology are John G. Hurst, Roberta Gilchrist, Neil Price, Helena Hamerow, Mary Lewis, Finbar McCormick, Howard Williams, Eileen Murphy, David M. Wilson and Charles Thomas.
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.